Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

New Data Type Implementation

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #97984

    Sven Bingert
    Member

    Dear PIDInst Group,
    we update our Kernel Information Profile (KIP) to fit to the schema V1.0 from GitHub.
    The KIP can be found here: https://dtr-test.pidconsortium.net/#objects/21.T11148/17ce618137e697852ea6
    But more interesting is the validation schema which can be found here:
    http://typeapi.pidconsortium.net/dtype/schema/JSON/21.T11148/17ce618137e
    Please find attached an example data set that validates against the current implementation.
    There is a lot of freedom to translate the schema so we followed as close as possible.
    We removed the plural form and simplified the structure.
    One Issue which we were unsure is the following two examples:
    1) “Owner”: [
    {
    “ownerName”: “Sven”,
    “ownerContact”: “***@***.***”,
    “ownerIdentifier”: [
    “0000-13413-4132-41234”,
    {
    “ownerIdentifierType”: “ORCID”
    }
    ]
    }
    ]
    Or 2)
    “Owner”: [
    {
    “ownerName”: “Sven”,
    “ownerContact”: “***@***.***”,
    “ownerIdentifier”: {
    “ownerIdentifierValue”: “0000-13413-4132-41234”,
    “ownerIdentifierType”: “ORCID”
    }
    }
    ]
    The difference is on the structure of the ownerIdentifier. First example is close to the schema definition but uses an array to accommodate the value and type.
    While the second example is more logical when deriving a json. We implemented the second option for owner and similar examples in the schema.
    Another remark:
    – 5.3.1: Optional and occurrence of “1” are not compatible
    – 7.2.1: Optional and occurrence of “1” are not compatible
    And we were looking for a definition of “R” (required) and “M” (mandatory).
    Isn’t occurrence sufficient?
    We are looking for the feedback!
    Best regards
    Sven, Hans, Ali, Göksenin


    Dr. Sven Bingert
    Deputy Head eScience Group
    Tel.: +49 (0)551 39-30278
    Mail: ***@***.***
    ————————————————————————————————–
    Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen (GWDG)
    Burckhardtweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, URL: https://gwdg.de
    Support: Tel.: +49 551 39-30000, URL: https://gwdg.de/support
    Sekretariat: Tel.: +49 551 39-30001, E-Mail: ***@***.***
    Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Ramin Yahyapour
    Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger
    Sitz der Gesellschaft: Göttingen
    Registergericht: Göttingen, Handelsregister-Nr. B 598
    Zertifiziert nach ISO 9001 und ISO 27001

Log in to reply.