#xitter

@MikeTaylor @CrossrefOrg @qeios Guidance is that we use DOIs as citation identifiers. So different DOIs only for versions where change is likely to effect interpretation or crediting of the work. This is essentially an editorial decision.(e.g. A missing period may be trivial, unless it is a decimal point.)

@jasonpriem http://isni.oclc.org/sru/DB=1.2/?query=pica.isn+%3D+%220000+0004+0380+1313+%22&version=1.1&operation=searchRetrieve&stylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fisni.oclc.org%2Fsru%2FDB%3D1.2%2F%3Fxsl%3DsearchRetrieveResponse&recordSchema=isni-b&maximumRecords=10&startRecord=1&recordPacking=xml&sortKeys=none&x-info-5-mg-requestGroupings=none

For years we found ISNI licensing was opaque, but as of 2020-06, they link to an "ISNI Information License."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200603143900/https://www.isni.org/page/objectives-and-policies/

Not sure how it now relates the subset called "Open-ISNI"- but seems API for that died in 2020-08

@gcabanac @CrossrefOrg Thank you for your patience. So glad you find the API useful.

@_cyrusmg @CrossrefOrg Thanks. Confirmed. Looking.

Delighted to have @CrossrefOrg contributing to open source projects and living the Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure. Expect to see more of this.

https://www.crossref.org/blog/open-source-code-giving-back/