[GRASS-PSC] Introducing DOI for software, documentation and data in the GRASS project

Michael Barton Michael.Barton at asu.edu
Mon Nov 21 09:28:47 PST 2016

In fact, our plan is to mint DOI's via Zenodo to replace handles minted by ASU Libraries in the future.

C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity 
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science
Arizona State University

voice:  480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

> On Nov 21, 2016, at 7:20 AM, Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik at web.de> wrote:
> Michael Barton wrote
>> Markus and Co.
>> This is something CoMSES Net (Network for Computational Modeling in Social
>> and Ecological Sciences: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.comses.net&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=2XqftSPoWzzKpQBZsef2l78EzFJ7V-qFsxgPlEbR98I&e= ) has been working with for
>> some years now. We maintain a software code library, where researchers can
>> publish model code. We also provide for the option of code peer review,
>> which can happen when code is submitted to the library for review along
>> with a paper sent to a journal, or independent of any paper review. Code
>> that has passed peer review is currently assigned a “handle” from
>> handle.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__handle.net-26gt-3B&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=UGR-DI_wHshdnJafI6Bq9052kj0tJtFttN95PJGI9c0&e= . Handle.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__handle.net-26gt-3B&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=UGR-DI_wHshdnJafI6Bq9052kj0tJtFttN95PJGI9c0&e= 
>> is the organization that oversees the digital identifier ecosystem. DOI’s
>> are commercial instances and handles are open source instances, but both
>> are ultimately under the purview of handle.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__handle.net-26gt-3B&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=UGR-DI_wHshdnJafI6Bq9052kj0tJtFttN95PJGI9c0&e= .
>> With a new grant from NSF, CoMSES Net is now part of a new national data
>> infrastructure network in the US. One of our plans is to transition from
>> handles to DOI’s because these are more widely recognized.
>> Given all this, we’ve had to think quite a bit about how to ‘publish’
>> model code and assign identifiers. As Vaclav points out there are
>> significant issues with versioning. What happens with a new version? We’ve
>> adopted a conceptual position that we are not a versioning repository
>> primarily, but a place where authors can publish ‘finished’ code used in a
>> research project or product. We are trying to treat this like a library
>> and journal environment in that sense. We allow for minor revisions to
>> correct errors (including as a response to reviews). But if a new product
>> (e.g., a research paper) uses a new version of model code, we consider
>> that a new digital object published, which could get a new handle/DOI
>> distinct from a version of a model used for an earlier product. This
>> remains something that is complicated to implement in practice. But the
>> concept involves the reason for giving out the handle/DOI in the first
>> place.
>> Currently, only about 10% of published model based science makes code
>> available for review or reuse. We think it is increasingly important that
>> researchers share the code that is an important component to scientific
>> practice in the same way they share research protocols and results—and are
>> increasingly encouraged to share data. But sharing code takes effort, and
>> even researchers with the best intentions may find it difficult to find
>> the time or energy to make code available. So we are trying to create
>> incentives that will have some value in the academic/research world,
>> including citable products. All models published in the CoMSES Net library
>> have automatically generated citations. Those that have passed peer
>> review, verifying some degree of software quality, are also given
>> permanent identifiers (handles/DOIs), with the idea that researchers can
>> put them on their CVs where they at least have the possibility of gaining
>> them some recognition for the work carried out. That is, we consider a DOI
>> as an incentive for sharing code and a bit of a lever to get others to
>> cite that code if they use it.
>> We are still trying to work out how best to handle improvements (bug
>> fixes) to a model vs. new models. We are moving our library to a Git
>> environment, but are still working out how to implement our concept of
>> “published” snapshots of code in a library/journal in versions and
>> releases in Git. We do have a roadmap and are working on it, but we don’t
>> yet have a solution in place.
>> Where is all this leading? We need to ask what is the value to assigning
>> DOIs to GRASS code, how might they benefit GRASS developers, and how might
>> they be used by GRASS software users? I don’t see that they provide the
>> kind of incentives that CoMSES Net is envisioning for computational model
>> developers. Most DOIs are assigned to finished products as digital
>> objects. From that perspective, GRASS could get a DOI, but not its
>> component modules. But what about each version of GRASS?  GRASS has formal
>> releases, but not its components. Some code is in the released code base
>> and other is in addons. There is ongoing development in the SVN. GRASS is
>> a digital object of course, as are its component code modules, but it is a
>> dynamic, living one and not a static one. Perhaps there are other benefits
>> to working out the complications of where and when to assign DOIs in the
>> GRASS ecosystem. But it will be good to start with a discussion of why and
>> for whom we would do it.
>> (I’m copying Allen Lee from the CoMSES Net leadership team as he has
>> thought a lot about this and might have other things to add.)
>> Cheers
>> Michael
> some kind of related:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ivory.idyll.org_blog_2016-2Dusing-2Dzenodo-2Dto-2Darchive-2Dgithub.html&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=ACWKZ0nzJky9D7hlnBU6flBzCk55BFWCmCbo7wV6UBk&e= 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zenodo.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=vtzV_W3cp5WYp-O8pUNtup92VVKHv73gaWTqeihxJWY&e= 
> -----
> best regards
> Helmut
> --
> View this message in context: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__osgeo-2Dorg.1560.x6.nabble.com_Introducing-2DDOI-2Dfor-2Dsoftware-2Ddocumentation-2Dand-2Ddata-2Din-2Dthe-2DGRASS-2Dproject-2Dtp5296235p5296759.html&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=6JOIwjz9cSQaMT28L4dz6rClrqSvZTuYJqZNt1vDlK0&e= 
> Sent from the GRASS-PSC mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.osgeo.org_mailman_listinfo_grass-2Dpsc&d=CwIGaQ&c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-1IxfAU&r=vxOW6PLS28MPea_dWUwPfRf71TAIziRDuFqWJimQN1I&m=fxAwSdFUptqrNZhLpoUeV51d4MElroWSZqBOxXCcNhw&s=guZH59FlD0IYS2uVWrRZMpP4FKd1jnLg_9nj2iw_BHk&e=

More information about the grass-psc mailing list