[fitsbits] [EXT] DOI for FITS standard document?

[THIERRY FORVEILLE]

   Dear Lucio,
 
> Still concerning the 4.0 version, I am rather reluctant to consider it for
> a journal publication, since de facto it merges (though with adjustments
> and language editing) stuff mostly already published.
> 
> A 4.1 or 5.0 with substantial improvements would be a different story, but
> the discussion on long-name keywords, which we should resume, seems to
> indicate this is not an easy or fast task.
> 
> (but if Thierry could get a DOI without publication we should not discard
> this possibility)
> 
The latter was indeed was indeed what I was thinking of. I agree that the
update does not justify a journal publication.

> I have no idea of the procedure to get a DOI for an "unpublished" document
> (although nowadays, with the phasing out of HARDCOPY publication, what
> does it mean exactly "published" ?), of how official should be the
> requestor of a DOI.
> 
I am not sure of the exact limits, but DOIs seem nowadays to be attributed fairly
liberally. CDS for instance attributes DOIs to the datasets that they archive,
some of which come from a journal article which has its own different DOI.

Best,
Thierry