Group Mailing list Archive

Assuming that collections can be dynamic, it occurs to me, without giving it a great deal of thought, that the general principles developed in the Dynamic Data Citation WG might answer some of the questions here.
I’ll also through in my view on Ulrich’s simple definition below as a decent starting point.
Best,
Larry

Gary:
We focus on collections that enable research collaborations. The types of entities we register into a collection include:
* sub-collections
* files
* soft links to other collections (micro-service structured objects)
* soft links to objects in external repositories (micro-service structured objects)
* database queries (micro-service invocation)
* workflows (workflow structured objects)
* sensor data streams (micro-service structured objects)

Dear Jeremy, Jeff, Gary,
You are right, that the purpose of the collection definition of the
collection WG is to set a minimum bar to get as much specificity as
necessary in order to outline an API at the end, that is able to handle
specific queries on collections.
The question whether DOs might be identified by a formal ID, or by a
query, or by some other method, is currently not really solved in this
context, and the idea to construct a collection by some function is
rather new in the collection WG.

If I am following correctly (and please disregard if not) a key question to
formulating the definition is how digital objects are identified (and
whether they have to be). That is, they might be identified by a formal ID,
or by a query, or by some other method (including that someone might say a
collection of bits--which themselves might have no identifying features,
though they could collectively be described--make up the collection or
entity they are interested in understanding as a collected whole).