Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] DOI-05

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:19:09 +0200

On 2014-07-01 00:06, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Attached, reflecting Tony and Heather's comments on -04.
>
> RjS
>

If we update the code that generates reference*.xml already, can we 
please also fix it to drop unneeded stuff (empty <organization> 
elements, postal information, abstracts)?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 07:54:39 -0400

> elements, postal information, abstracts)?

It's possible.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:43:22 -0400

> Attached, reflecting Tony and Heather's comments on -04.

Thank you Robert.

Any idea what the additional node to rfc-index.xml would look like? Here 
is a sample rfc-entry node:

     <rfc-entry>
         <doc-id>RFC6949</doc-id>
         <title>RFC Series Format Requirements and Future 
Development</title>
         <author>
             <name>H. Flanagan</name>
         </author>
         <author>
             <name>N. Brownlee</name>
         </author>
         <date>
             <month>May</month>
             <year>2013</year>
         </date>
         <format>
             <file-format>ASCII</file-format>
             <char-count>29181</char-count>
             <page-count>14</page-count>
         </format>
         <abstract><p>This document describes the current requirements 
and requests for enhancements for the format of the canonical version of 
RFCs.  Terms are defined to help clarify exactly which stages of 
document production are under discussion for format changes.  The 
requirements described in this document will determine what changes will 
be made to RFC format.  This document updates RFC 2223.</p></abstract>
         <draft>draft-iab-rfcformatreq-03</draft>
         <updates>
             <doc-id>RFC2223</doc-id>
         </updates>
         <current-status>INFORMATIONAL</current-status>
<publication-status>INFORMATIONAL</publication-status>
         <stream>IAB</stream>
     </rfc-entry>

I suggest that there be an additional node called <doi> placed at the 
end with the value of the acquired DOI. I think this answer needs to be 
in the document.

There needs to be a statement that the value specified in that node 
would be used directly in the bibxml entry.

Any idea what "the acquired DOI for RFC694" would look like in:

     <seriesInfo name='DOI' value='(the acquired DOI for RFC694)'/> 
Microsoft Word - DOI_Processing-05.docx

There may be constraints by the DOI organization on the answer for this 
question.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:03:30 -0500

On 7/2/14, 7:43 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> Any idea what the additional node to rfc-index.xml would look like? 
> Here is a sample rfc-entry node:
>
>     <rfc-entry>
>         <doc-id>RFC6949</doc-id>
> and requests for enhancements for the format of the canonical version 
> of RFCs.  Terms are defined to help clarify exactly which stages of 
> requirements described in this document will determine what changes 
> will be made to RFC format. This document updates RFC 2223.</p></abstract>
> end with the value of the acquired DOI. I think this answer needs to 
> be in the document.
That suggestion works for me if it works for the RFC Editor folks.
Is there a published grammar for rfc-index.xml that would need updating?
> Microsoft Word - DOI_Processing-05.docx
See section 2 of <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-doi/> for (a 
little) more detail, but it will look something like

<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.12345/rfc6949'/>

things that consume that information can turn it into a resolvable link 
that looks like
http://dx.doi.org/10.12345/rfc6949

>
> There may be constraints by the DOI organization on the answer for 
> this question.
>
>     Tony Hansen

---

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:13:01 -0400

>> I suggest that there be an additional node called <doi> placed at the end with the value of the acquired DOI. I think this answer needs to be in the document.

> That suggestion works for me if it works for the RFC Editor folks.

Yes.

> Is there a published grammar for rfc-index.xml that would need updating?

It's here:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xsd

Thanks,
Alice

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:20:30 +0200

On 2014-07-02 14:43, Tony Hansen wrote:
> ...

Speaking of which: if we update rfc-index.xml anyway please by all means 
add the information that's currently missing that would be needed to 
generate <reference>s from it (namely: having sufficient granularity on 
the author names).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:39:17 -0500

On 7/2/14, 10:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Speaking of which: if we update rfc-index.xml anyway please by all 
> means add the information that's currently missing that would be 
> needed to generate <reference>s from it (namely: having sufficient 
> granularity on the author names).
IIRC, Julian wasn't on last weeks call? (Apologies if I misremember).

Either way, I wanted to capture on list that we discussed this during 
the call, and will pursue it outside the scope of the DOI project.
Alice pointed out that more than the index schema would have to change - 
there would have to be data collection/remediation work to add 
information to the database the index is built on before this could be 
achieved.

We are planning to talk about it more in the hallways in Toronto.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:01:22 +0200

> We are planning to talk about it more in the hallways in Toronto.

Ack.

I thought the information is already *somewhere*, because, after all, 
the RFC editor already publishes reference information...

Best regards, Julian