Re: [ddi-developers] Digest for ddi-developers@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 2 topics

[Pascal Heus]

Achim:

I am happy on my end to look at supporting API efforts.

I can bring this into a Postman environment where we could work on the specs, mock, test, and collaborate.

Best

*P

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 6:11 PM <ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Digest for ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic - 1 Update
• Digest for ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic - 3 Updates

Digest for ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Olof Olsson <bor...@gmail.com>: Apr 10 06:50AM -0700 Hi Achim! I remember your proposal for a standard API and i think it would be good to present in to the group to see if there is any feedback. Not sure if attachement works on google groups but if you have the posibility upload your files to a git repository and link it. Wil you be able to attend the next developers meeting (may 14th 16:00 CET) to present your proposal for the standard REST API?   Best regards, Olof     onsdag 9 april 2025 kl. 23:01:16 UTC+2 skrev Achim:

Back to top

Digest for ddi-dev...@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic

Pascal Heus <pas...@codata.org>: Apr 09 08:36PM -0600 Achim: I couldn't agree more that APIs are more than needed ;-) LLMs, agents, and rising specifications such as Model Control Protocol (MCP) only add to their importance. I'll chime in if I get the chance. Cheers, *P

Wenzig, Knut <KWe...@diw.de>: Apr 10 08:58AM Hi,   Thanks a lot for the initiative.   From my point of view, there is a need for standardized methods to publish metadata. Some of you may have seen our IASSIST Quarterly paper "State of the DDI Cloud" (https://doi.org/10.29173/iq1116), in which we analyzed 250,000 records of DDI-Codebook metadata harvested via OAI-PMH. With this protocol, a similar issue arises: one must specify a so-called metadataPrefix (https://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html#MetadataNamespaces), and we found a zoo of DDI-related prefixes—oai_ddi, oai_ddi25, oai_ddi25-de, oai_ddi25-en, oai_ddi32, ddi, ddi_c, ddi25, ddi33, oai_ddi31. This clearly demonstrates the need for guidance.   Since OAI-PMH requires metadata to be delivered as an "XML-encoded byte stream", the protocol is not well suited for other formats like JSON or others. (At SOEP, we face another issue: existing OAI-PMH server software cannot deliver a single DDI-Codebook XML record larger than 500 MB—at least not out of the box.)   An alternative approach could be to use signposting (https://signposting.org/FAIR/) and insert a link into the HTML code of a DOI landing page, such as:   ```html <link rel="describedby" type="application/XML" href="link.to/some/ddi.xml"> ```   If the MIME types Olof suggested for XML and Pascal extended to other file formats—I would also like to see version numbers—harvesting would become significantly easier. This would offer a straightforward way to publish metadata for a digital object without requiring a dedicated API (in this sense, I would respectfully disagree with Achim).   In that scenario, harvesting metadata would simply require a central registry for repositories (e.g., re3data.org, which already exists), and for those repositories to provide some sort of sitemap—like Dataverse does. (Example: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/sitemap_index.xml, Documentation: https://guides.dataverse.org/en/latest/installation/config.html)   The Model Context Protocol (MCP, https://modelcontextprotocol.io/introduction) also seems promising, though I’m not aware of the potential costs it might impose on repositories wishing to publish metadata.   In conclusion, I believe the DDI Alliance should recommend a standardized way to publish metadata, and the proposed MIME types would be a meaningful contribution toward this goal. (It would be ideal if they could be used also as a basis for a recommendation on OAI-PMH prefixes.)   Best, Knut

Adrian Dușa <dusa....@gmail.com>: Apr 10 03:36PM +0300 On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 11:58 AM 'Wenzig, Knut' via DDI Developers < > significantly easier. This would offer a straightforward way to publish > metadata for a digital object without requiring a dedicated API (in this > sense, I would respectfully disagree with Achim).   Agree this should not be mandatory, but it shouldn't exclude it either. If a REST API is available (REST, not just an API), it would be a standard way to communicate (send/receive) with a server. I see nothing wrong discussing / agreeing / publishing the standard specifications for something like this.   Best, Adrian

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to ddi-developer...@googlegroups.com.