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/

PIDINST schema in DataCite metadata

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #99106

    Elise Harder
    Member

    Dear all,
    I have heard back from DataCite regarding the inclusion of the PIDINST schema version in DataCite metadata. Please find my correspondence with them below in italics. Moreover, as DataCite consortium lead we just received a notification that the new schema version 4.5 (to be released this fall) is now open for feedback (see also below).
    Best,
    Elise
    Hi Elise,
    Thanks for reaching out! This is something the metadata group is considering for version 5.0, as it will likely require a backwards-incompatible change. There is a similar use case for IGSN IDs, which we currently do not have a way to differentiate at the DOI level. We are also considering having separate resource-type specific metadata profiles, which could enable more of the PIDINST schema to be represented in DataCite metadata directly.
    The best recommendation I have at the moment is to use the new resourceTypeGeneral “Instrument” (which will be part of Version 4.5).
    As you note, the RelatedIdentifier sub-property relatedMetadataScheme is more suited for references to additional metadata elsewhere. If there is additional metadata, you could do something like this:
    [insert link to additional metadata]
    I hope this helps to understand what is currently possible. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for how Instrument metadata could be differentiated in the future.
    Cheers, Kelly Kelly Stathis Technical Community Manager | DataCite

    Dear Kelly,
    In our monthly call of the RDA Persistent Identification of Instruments WG we discussed this morning how when someone would register a DOI for a measuring instrument via DataCite they could best express in their DOI metadata that they are referring to version xy of the PIDINST metadata schema (see https://github.com/rdawg-pidinst/schema and https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/pidinst-schema-1.0_Final.pdf for more details). In this scenario we assume that the DataCite DOI is the only instance providing metadata on the instrument in question. Do you or the metadata working group have any thoughts on this?
    We discussed the relatedMetadataScheme property in this context, but were not sure, whether this would have to refer to another instance providing additional metadata on the very same object (i.e., a landing page of some sort in another system), or whether this could refer to another schema in general like the github page above. Could you shed some light on this for us?
    Thank you very much already in advance,
    kind regards,
    Elise
     
    Draft of DataCite Metadata Schema 4.5 open for feedback
    Dear DataCite Consortium Leads,
    The DataCite Metadata Working Group has released a draft of Metadata Schema 4.5.
    Please distribute this proposal to your consortium organizations.
    This proposal includes:

    Support for instruments
    Support for pre-registrations and registration reports
    Support for publisher identifiers
    New Distribution property
    Clarifications to RelatedItem property
    Updated PhysicalObject definition

    Details on how to provide feedback are included in the Request for Comments.
    A copy of the proposal in PDF format is also available.
    For more information, please see the DataCite Blog: https://doi.org/10.5438/q34f-c696
    We welcome your input on this proposal through October 17, 2022. Should you have any questions, please reach out to ***@***.***.
    Regards,
    The DataCite Team

Log in to reply.