Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] DOI-04

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:22:07 -0500

Attached.

This version
* captures/continues the conversation of which of CrossRef's document 
types to use.
* captures that the bibxml reference library updates will be done in 
both v2 and v3 formats (closing the open issue from -03).
* adds the contractor instruction links.

Tony - there's apparently a well-known and unsolved bug with OS/X Word 
saving to PDF
getting hyperlinks wrong. Two of the links in this PDF are broken. If 
you can't easily
figure them out, let me know and I'll send them directly.

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:53:40 -0700

> * adds the contractor instruction links.

Some minor wordsmithing:

OLD:

The project will automate both a bulk update to the following products
to reflect the DOI information for existing RFCs.

NEW:

The project will automate a bulk update to the following products to
reflect the DOI information for existing RFCs.

Other than that, I am looking forward to seeing this go out for
community review!

-Heather

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:52:40 -0400

> figure them out, let me know and I'll send them directly.

In the section on bibxml:

if we use <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='...'/> to hold the DOI values, 
there is no need to have a separate V2 and V3 version of the bibxml entries.

There is no need to do a mass update of the bibxml entries. Instead, 
there needs to be an update made to the bibxml generation tools based on 
the changes being made to rfc-index.xml. Once that is done, the bibxml 
entires themselves will be updated the next time the tool is run.

There also needs to be someone working with the rfc editor to define the 
changes to be made to the rfc-index.* formats.

This SoW can actually be split into multiple projects, dealing 
separately with

1) RFC Editor tools to register DOIs on an ongoing basis,
2) upgrading of the rfc-index tools,
3) upgrading of the bibxml tools

For example, the bibxml tools could be updated as soon as the rfc-index 
format changes are decided on, say during a code sprint.

I don't think it's necessary to discuss anything about xml.resource.org 
with respect to bibxml. There's nothing in bibxml right now that is 
specific to ANY domain name.

     Tony hansen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:58:37 -0500

Thanks Tony -

comments/questions inline:

On 6/17/14, 9:52 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> Tony - there's apparently a well-known and unsolved bug with OS/X 
>> Word saving to PDF
Which would be a plus. How close to stable are we on that conversation?
> there needs to be an update made to the bibxml generation tools based 
> on the changes being made to rfc-index.xml. Once that is done, the 
> bibxml entires themselves will be updated the next time the tool is run.
Very good, so things fall out of the rfc-index updates for bibxml.

That won't get the entries for bibxml[2-5], but that's already a 
separate deliverable.
>
> There also needs to be someone working with the rfc editor to define 
> the changes to be made to the rfc-index.* formats.
ack.
> 3) upgrading of the bibxml tools
I'll keep these in this one document for now (it's short), but make sure 
the text is structured to make it easy to pull apart later.
>
> For example, the bibxml tools could be updated as soon as the 
> rfc-index format changes are decided on, say during a code sprint.
ack.
>
>
> I don't think it's necessary to discuss anything about 
> xml.resource.org with respect to bibxml. There's nothing in bibxml 
> right now that is specific to ANY domain name.
I'll change the tone, but I think we should keep information that the 
name is changing just to sensitize anyone working on the project that 
might see it being used as they go along. That said, I'm betting the 
names are changed before this goes out, and this becomes moot.
>
>     Tony hansen
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:02:30 -0400

On 6/19/14, 10:58 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> * captures/continues the conversation of which of CrossRef's 
>>> document types to use.
>>> getting hyperlinks wrong. Two of the links in this PDF are broken. 
>>> If you can't easily
>> if we use <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='...'/> to hold the DOI 
>> values, there is no need to have a separate V2 and V3 version of the 
>> bibxml entries.

Someone (Heather?) needs to decide that the use of <seriesInfo 
name='DOI' value='...'/> is really the right thing to do.

Note: using <seriesInfo/> like this will generate a reference in the 
text that looks like this:

    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
               1234.5678/123123, March 1997.

I think that looks reasonable.

> That won't get the entries for bibxml[2-5], but that's already a 

I doubt we'll ever add DOIs to internet drafts, so bibxml3 should be safe.

If W3C or 3GPP were to publish DOIs for their documents, we could add 
them to bibxml[45]. This would need to be a comparable change to the 
bibxml generation tools.

The values in bibxml2 would need to be done by hand, should someone 
decide that it is necessary.

> I'll keep these in this one document for now (it's short), but make 
> sure the text is structured to make it easy to pull apart later.
>>

ack

     Tony

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:46:22 -0700

On 6/19/14, 12:02 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>>> * captures that the bibxml reference library updates will be done
>>>> in both v2 and v3 formats (closing the open issue from -03).

I believe that was the consensus on the Design Team (in a sort of "if we
have to do DOI's, which some of us think are just silly, then we
seriesInfo is probably the correct way" way).  So, yes, consider this
decided.

>>> there needs to be an update made to the bibxml generation tools
>>> based on the changes being made to rfc-index.xml. Once that is done,
>>> the bibxml entires themselves will be updated the next time the tool
>>> is run.

I certainly wouldn't recommend doing so.

> decide that it is necessary.

In case you're curious, here is what IEEE says about using DOIs in
citations:
"The basic guideline for citing online sources is to follow the standard
citation for the source given previously and add the Digital Object
Identifier (DOI) at the end of the citation, or add the DOI in place of
page numbers if the source is not paginated.  The DOI for each IEEE
conference article is assigned when the article is processed for
inclusion in the IEEE Xplore digital library and is included with the
reference data of the article in Xplore.  See "The DOI System" for more
information about the benefits of DOI referencing."
http://www.ieee.org/documents/ieeecitationref.pdf

-Heather

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:57:25 -0400

On 6/19/14, 5:46 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> I believe that was the consensus on the Design Team (in a sort of "if 
> we have to do DOI's, which some of us think are just silly, then we 

There was discussion of various possibilities, including discussions of 
using URIs and URNs and not. I don't recall coming to a consensus though.

So, thank you Heather, for making the decision.

It's not necessary for the SoW, but it would be useful to come up with 
soon what the change to rfc-index.xml will look like.

     Tony Hansen