Hi Miriam,
The questions you asked with respect to DOIs for tissue samples are the
same questions we asked ourselves in the project "Publication and
Citation of Primary Research Data" (STD-DOI) <http://www.std-doi.de> if
we wanted to assign DOI as identifiers to geological samples. Due to the
specific use cases of geological samples and due to the business model
for DOIs at the time we decided against using DOI and set up our own
handle-based system, now modelled after the example of DataCite. It is
now in operation as the International Geo Sample Number (IGSN). More
information can be found at <http://www.igsn.org> and
<http://dokuwiki.gfz-potsdam.de/datawiki/doku.php?id=igsn:start>.
The IGSN persistent identifier infrastructures could be used for other
types of samples or disciplines, too.
Since the inception of the IGSN things have changed and it is clearly
feasible to use DOI for physical specimens.
Can DOI be used for physical objects?
Yes, because DOI is a digital identifier for objects, not only an
identifier for digital objects.
Where should the DOI point in the case of physical samples?
The DOI should point to a digital representation of the physical object,
i.e. a "landing page" with metadata on this object.
What about specimens being consumed or degrading with time?
The consumption of degradation with time of specimens is a common case
in geochemistry. The specimen, if published, is still an object that is
being referenced by data and literature and has thus become part of the
record of science. It is therefore in line with common practice in
scientific communication to keep a reference to the object of
investigation, even if the object no longer exists.
A really significant feature of DOI and IGSN is their metadata element
"relatedIdentifier" which allows to point from one identifier to another
identifier, e.g. data to literature, and codify the nature of this
relation, e.g. "isCitedBy". This element allows a much tighter
integration of literature, data and samples, aiding both systematic and
serendipitous discovery.
Citation of specimens is certainly an important factor in the
acknowledgement for curation of the specimen.
The primary goal for the development of the IGSN was to create a system
of unambiguous, worldwide resolvable names for geological samples. [1]
Unsystematic naming of samples made close to impossible to compile
synthesis studies of global geochemistry. I am sure the issue of sample
identification is also relevant to tissue samples [2].
Kind regards,
Jens
[1] Lehnert, K. A., and J. Klump (2012), The Geoscience Internet of
Things, in Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 14, pp. EGU2012–13370,
Copernicus Society, Vienna, Austria. [online] Available from:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2012/EGU2012-13370.pdf
[2] Engel, M. (2012), Falsche und verunreinigte Zellen - Akademisches
Risiko durch falsche Etikettierung, Forschung Aktuell. [online]
Available from: http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/forschak/1708955/
(Accessed 21 March 2012)
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:15:29 +0000
> From: "M. Casula" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: DataCite DOIs and tissue samples
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Sometime ago an inquiry was posted on my behalf regarding the use of
> DOIs for tissue samples to enable their citation in derivative works.
>
>
>
> The added value of aknowledging the source should not be
> underestimated, as it gives due credit to the curators and donors, and
> promotes use of the samples for further research. This is infact what
> is motivating my interest to assign identifiers to tissue samples.
>
>
>
> While in principle it is feasible to use DOIs with tissue samples (by
> having them resolve to metadata about the samples themselves) the
> question arises as to whether a digital object identifier should be
> used for something real as opposed to something digital? Although this
> may seem somewhat academic, there is a practical issue in this
> particular case because tissue samples are gradually consumed and will
> eventually no longer exist. In which case, I wonder whether the use of
> DOIs to identify real things is advisable?
>
>
>
> Any advice and/or opinion would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Miriam
>
>
>
>
>
> Miriam Casula, PhD
> Neuropathology Department
> Academic Medical Centre
> University of Amsterdam
> Meibergdreef 9
> The Netherlands
> Tel: +31205665649
>
> ________________________________
>
> AMC Disclaimer : http://www.amc.nl/disclaimer
>
> ________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:46:18 +0100
> From: Andy Turner <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DataCite DOIs and tissue samples
>
> Hi Miriam et al.,
>
> It is my understanding that a DOI itself is digital, but it can refer
to a physical sample or other physical data like it can refer to some
digital data. Physical samples are clearly data and informational and
using DOI's to refer to these is a good idea. Physical samples that are
scanned to produce digital data about the sample may not last as long as
the digital data. Whether it is worth assigning a DOI comes down to how
long that sample is going to be around. If it's not likely to be around
for long enough for it to be reused then it probably isn't worth it.
What that means in practice is probably at least weeks, but then I
suppose that depends on how fast the field is.
>
> In terms of tissue samples, these clearly are data in my mind. Indeed,
by extension, whole organisms are too in stored contexts. The thing I
struggle with is if there is scope to use a DOI to refer to an
individual person or a collection of people that may have been part of a
study, are not stored for further study, but can be found via addresses
for further study. If there is a DOI for a living person, I'd really
like to hear about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> ________________________________
> From: Research Data Management discussion list
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Casula
[[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 19 September 2013 21:15
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: DataCite DOIs and tissue samples
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Sometime ago an inquiry was posted on my behalf regarding the use of
DOIs for tissue samples to enable their citation in derivative works.
>
>
>
> The added value of aknowledging the source should not be
underestimated, as it gives due credit to the curators and donors, and
promotes use of the samples for further research. This is infact what is
motivating my interest to assign identifiers to tissue samples.
>
>
>
> While in principle it is feasible to use DOIs with tissue samples (by
having them resolve to metadata about the samples themselves) the
question arises as to whether a digital object identifier should be used
for something real as opposed to something digital? Although this may
seem somewhat academic, there is a practical issue in this particular
case because tissue samples are gradually consumed and will eventually
no longer exist. In which case, I wonder whether the use of DOIs to
identify real things is advisable?
>
>
>
> Any advice and/or opinion would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Miriam
>
>
>
>
>
> Miriam Casula, PhD
> Neuropathology Department
> Academic Medical Centre
> University of Amsterdam
> Meibergdreef 9
> The Netherlands
> Tel: +31205665649
>
> ________________________________
>
> AMC Disclaimer : http://www.amc.nl/disclaimer
>
> ________________________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RESEARCH-DATAMAN Digest - 17 Sep 2013 to 19 Sep 2013
(#2013-131)
>
***********************************************************************
--
Dr. Jens Klump
Centre for GeoInformation Technology
Phone: +49 331 288-1702
FAX: +49 331 288-1703
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
_______________________________________
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam
GFZ German Research Centre For Geosciences
Public Law Foundation State of Brandenburg
Telegrafenberg, D-14473 Potsdam
"Digital information lasts forever - or five years, whichever comes
first."
(Jeff Rothenberg, RAND Corp., 1997)
|
