3 ms·
Wait, aren't those two statements opposed to each other? Different versions of a paper should have different DOIs. A DOI is fundamentally quite abstract, and t
by matthewmacleod 9y ago
Wait, aren't those two statements opposed to each other?
Different versions of a paper should have different DOIs. A DOI is fundamentally quite abstract, and there is no reason that an object-appropriate versioning scheme can't be laid on top. Figshare, for example, uses a versioning system where there is a single DOI referring to the overall artefact (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037) and a versioned-by-suffix DOI referring to a specific version (e.g. 10.6084/m9.figshare.2066037.v16). That works really well IMO.
- poppingtonic 9y agoArXiv itself does this. See the 'cite as' section of this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08475, which has the note arXiv:1707.08475 [stat.ML] (or arXiv:1707.08475v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
- aw3c2 9y agoOops, yes of course. That's what I meant. Typo. :)