Metadata change suggestion: Support for PID for Instruments
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Kristian Garza
Sep 27, 2021, 9:54:58 AM9/27/21
to DataCite Metadata
Hi Metadata Working Group,
The following is a suggestion by one of our members that was discussed in the last Open Hours session. There was a significant number of comments and discussion about this suggestion. Thus here we are forwarding all the information for your consideration.
Best regards
Suggestion: Include support for ResourceTypeGeneral:"instrument" and PIDINST.
Comments from Members
We have started a new project, for which this would be highly useful.
GS
It is important to our laboratory and our sponsor to track the impacts of our instrumentation on furthering scientific progress. While we assign DOIs to datasets, this is a more direct metric for use of the instrumentation in scientific publications and analyses. We have assigned 23 DOIs to our instrumentation but so far citation of these DOIs is pretty inconsistent. We hope this improves as the community gets more used to citing these in publications.
We need calibration information an other instrumental properties associated with datasets
Could a future version of the DataCite schema include the controlled term PIDINST for the related identifier element please.
PT
There is the ePIC-System, mainly for institute internal PID-applications: https://www.pidconsortium.net/. You may evaluate this system, wether it may fit your purpose better than DOIs. Please keep in mind, that DOIs should be addressed mainly for "eternaly" exisiting entities published/exposed to the world. But instruments lifetime is limited and their use restricted to internal application. A different aspect comes into focus, if you want to expose information about instruments to give users of data quired with those instruments a rough estimate how trustworthy the data may be. For this purpose the valid calibration certificate about a respective instrument is a much more reliable information than a PID for that instrument. For a certificat, as a document issued by a calibration authority a DOI can be assigned to. But be aware, that each or every few years (depending on the instrument type) recalibrations are necessary. So your instrument will gather a lot of (DOI assigned) calibration certificates during its lifetime. The certificate states the measurement uncertainty of the respective instrument.
I am writing from a national metrology institute staff member and library directors perspective.
Greetings J. Meier
TC
I would second this. We are currently looking into this functionality and are trying to use existing tools that aren't custom built for it.
Super important for showing impact of research instruments, for instance, HPC platform in the University
DF
I would support that. We run a global network of instruments that measure greenhouse gases (Total Carbon Column Observing Network TCCON, https://tccondata.org). We assign individual DOIs to the datasets observed by different instruments. Some time, there can be several instruments of the same type at the same station. The instrument identifier is coded into our DOI. However, AFAIK, the recommendation is not to encode meta information into the DOI itself. So an instrument identifier would be useful for us.
—
Kristian Garza | Product Designer | DataCite
A: DataCite e.V. -- Welfengarten 1B, 30167 Hannover, Germany
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages