Would you like us to add a new selection to a controlled list? Please provide use case, specifics.

[Joan Starr]

[Rachael Kotarski]

Hi,

 

I'd like to suggest the addition of  ‘IsReviewOf’ and ‘IsReviewedBy’ to the controlled list of relationTypes for Related Identifier. There are moves to  assign identidiers to referee reports available in open peer review, which this would support. But the term wouldn’t necessarily have to be *peer* review, so would fit more than one use case.

 

This is relevant to ongoing work around peer review of data:

http://casrai.org/about/announcements/orcid-%26-casrai-kick-off-new-standards-project-on-%E2%80%98peer-review-services%E2%80%99 

 

 

On Thursday, 8 August 2013 18:42:51 UTC+1, Joan Starr wrote:

[Alf Eaton]

I have exactly the same request, with the additional suggestion that to fit with the existing relation types ("Cites", "References") the names could possibly be "Reviews" and "IsReviewedBy". "IsReviewOf" fits semantically too, though.

Currently "References" is the closest fit, but I would rather reserve that for formal citations, rather than any reference to another article.

Here's an example of the kind of object that needs the "Reviews" relation type for linking to the article under review: http://data.datacite.org/10.5256/f1000research.310.r906

Alf

[Joan Starr]

Hello to both of you,

The Metadata Working Group met today and considered your suggestion. We approved it for inclusion in the next release, with the language that Alf suggested, "Reviews" and "isReviewedBy."

Best regards,

Joan Starr
Chair, DataCite Metadata Working Group

[Lars Holm Nielsen]

Hi,

I'd like to suggest the addition of "ARXIV" and "ADS" to the controlled list of relatedIdentifierType for Related Identifier, similar to the PudMed identifier type which is included in the current schema. 

arXiv identifiers are documented at http://arxiv.org/help/arxiv_identifier.

ADS bibliographic identifiers are documented at http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs_doc/help_pages/data.html#Bibliographic_Identifiers

arXiv: arXiv preprints is a highly used service in both astronomy and physics. Preprints in arXiv do not have any other identifier than the arxiv identifier, and thus the only option in the current schema is to link to an arxiv preprint via the URL. 

ADS: ADS is the primary literature database in Astronomy. By adding ADS bibliographic identifiers you would allow persistent linking to e.g. observation proposals. Observation proposals themselves are usually linked with a number of datasets (observations). E.g. from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010hst..prop12601L you can get the datasets in http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/search.php by entering proposal ID 12601.

Cheers,

Lars

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:42:51 PM UTC+2, Joan Starr wrote:

[Rachael Kotarski]

Thanks Joan.

 

Another item for a controlled list that seems to be missing is from the contributorType list: DataCurator.

 

Data curation is a specific role in the data lifecycle that should ideally be acknowledged, but none of the current contributorType options is suitable for the people performing this role.

 

Thanks, Rachael.

[Joan Starr]

Hi Rachael,
Thank you for your suggestion. The Metadata Working Group will discuss this idea at our next regular meeting in May.
Best,
Joan Starr
Chair, Metadata Working Group

[Alf Eaton]

Thanks Joan (and the Working Group).

Another request/use case: for items that are "annotations" of an article - such as questions, comments, etc - might it make sense to add "Annotates" and "isAnnotatedBy" as relations?

Alf

[Joan Starr]

Hi Alf,

I'd like to ask a follow-up question. Are you proposing that you would assign a DOI to comments or questions related to articles? Or are you assigning other identifiers in this way? Can you please give us an actual use case where comments and/or questions are being cited in scholarly communication? A bit more information would be helpful to us in advance of our discussion.

Thank you,

Joan Starr
Chair, DataCite Metadata Working Group

[Alf Eaton]

That's it, yes - comments, questions and other annotations on articles
(post-publication feedback, essentially) would be assigned DOIs, so
that they have a permanent, transferable identifier to use when they
are cited. I'm using "annotation" in the sense that the Open
Annotation community uses it, which would include any of these types
of annotations:
<http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations>

I'd like to give an example of an existing comment or question being
cited in scholarly communication, but it's hard to find any as they're
not usually treated as formal, citable objects, so far…

Alf

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "DataCite Metadata" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/datacite-metadata/Ebp8H98Dvkk/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> datacite-metad...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joan Starr]

Hi Alf,

So, is the idea that, somehow, the annotations and comments will be hosted in a persistent repository somewhere? Can they be reached at a unique target URL? To get DOIs, they would have to have these characteristics.

--Joan

> datacite-metadata+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Alf Eaton]

Does a publisher's web site count as a persistent repository?

Yes, they all have unique target URLs.

Alf

>> > datacite-metad...@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "DataCite Metadata" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/datacite-metadata/Ebp8H98Dvkk/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

> datacite-metad...@googlegroups.com.

[Joan Starr]

Hi Alf,

Okay, now I have the full picture, and we can discuss this at our next meeting. To answer your question, I would say "it depends." What is the publisher's policy on retention of social content? What is the publisher's policy on retention of the website? We will talk about this in the working group.

Thanks for your submission,

Joan

>> > datacite-metadata+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "DataCite Metadata" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/datacite-metadata/Ebp8H98Dvkk/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

> datacite-metadata+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Joan Starr]

Hi Rachael,
At today's meeting of the Metadata Working Group we approved the addition of this contributorType. It will be added in the next version of the schema.
Best,

Joan Starr
Chair, DataCite Metadata Working Group

On Monday, April 14, 2014 1:52:05 AM UTC-7, Rachael Kotarski wrote:

[Matthias Töwe]

Dear colleagues,

In a repository implementation project, the question came up, if there is a need to have additional values for resourceTypeGeneral , namely "Database" and "Webarchive". The impression was that they are not well categorised as e.g. Dataset and InteractiveResource or Collection.

It is obvious that resourceTypeGeneral cannot cover all specific types. Could you please comment on where these two types could fit in? Or are they really "missing"?

Thank you very much and best regards

Matthias Töwe

ETH Library
ETH Zurich

P.S. I just realised that the resource behind the example link for Workflow (http://www.taverna.org.uk/) on page 27 of V3.1 is no longer valid.

Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2013 19:42:51 UTC+2 schrieb Joan Starr:

[Barton, Amy J]

​Hello, 

We are currently taking suggestions from our colleagues and clients to consider for metadata version 4.2. I will add your suggestions to the list of items we will discuss.

Thanks for the suggestions.

All the best!

Amy

Co-Chair

DataCite Metadata Working Group

Amy J. Barton, MLS

Assistant Professor of Library Science, Metadata Specialist

Purdue University Libraries, Research Data

(765) 494-6333​

hat...@purdue.edu

---

From: datacite...@googlegroups.com <datacite...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Matthias Töwe <matthia...@library.ethz.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:29 AM
To: DataCite Metadata
Subject: Re: Would you like us to add a new selection to a controlled list? Please provide use case, specifics.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataCite Metadata" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to datacite-metad...@googlegroups.com.

[rachael....@bl.uk]

Proposal: Add ‘Registration’ to ResourceTypeGeneral.

Organisations who already, or would like to, assign DataCite DOIs for registered trials and studies need to be supported with an appropriate ResourceTypeGeneral term: Registration.

 

Clinical trials have been pre-registering their study and analysis design for a number of years. It increases trust in the results of clinical trials and helps to avoid the ‘burial’ of trials with unfavourable results. The ICMJE require that trials to be registered before data collection if their results are to be published (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html). Study registration is also being taken up in other areas, such as social science and psychology, and also avoids bad statistical practice (see https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration).

 

A session at PIDapalooza discussed the need for identifiers for these registrations. Some are already doing so, or plan to do so, using Crossref (for example https://www.isrctn.com/, who have had DOIs for a number of years, I worked closely with them when I was at BMC).

 

OSF already assigns DOIs to preregistrations when requested -- it seems like without specifying an item type, see e.g.

https://data.datacite.org/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.17605/OSF.IO/XEMZV. An appropriate resource type would encourage them to use the most up-to-date metadata schema. Not all registrations occur before the data collection starts (although that is the ideal) hence the suggestion of ‘Registration’ rather than ‘Pre-Registration’.

 

I am adding this suggestion after discussion with Sebastian Karcher who ran the PIDapalooza session. He has discussed across all these groups and they would be keen to see ‘registrations’ represented in the DataCite resourceType vocabulary.

Thanks, Rachael.

[Hatfield Hart, Amy J]

Hi Rachael,

Thank you for your suggestion, and for the use case you provided. The Metadata Working Group will discuss the addition of ResourceTypeGeneral "Registration".

​

All the best!

Amy

Co-Chair DataCite Metadata Working Group

Amy J. Hatfield Hart, MLS

Assistant Professor of Library Science, Metadata Specialist

Purdue University Libraries, Research Data

(765) 494-6333​

hat...@purdue.edu

---

From: datacite...@googlegroups.com <datacite...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of rachael....@bl.uk <rachael....@bl.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:17 AM