Group Mailing list Archive

I realize I am not addressing all of the concerns that have been raised,
but I wonder if a way to move forward would be something like the
definition below:
A collection is a digital object which is identified by a PID and consists
of a set of digital objects with explicitly defined relationships that are
identified in explicitly defined ways.
It seems that for the machine actionability in particular, an explicit way
of identifying objects and understanding the relationship between them may

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

Ulrich,
U>My favorite definition for collection would actually be: A collection is
a digital object which is identified by a PID and consists of a set of
PIDs/Ids - full stop
​Simple is good but this may miss an important point which is that a
Collection has composition and a statement that it has parts (which your
have IDs for) is as important, it seems to me, to state as the IDs
themselves.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​
​

In case you have not seen the blog post by Daniel Katz, I think this mailing list will find it of interest
To better understand research communication, we need a GROID (group object identifier)
Best wishes,
Varsha
From: uschwar1=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of uschwar1
Sent: 19 April 2016 09:34
To: jjyork; Gary; Data Fabric IG; Research Data Collections WG