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/

Who We Are
What We Do
What We Work On
Get Involved
Events
RDA Groups
News & Media

Next Call September 19, 2 pm UTC (Technical Subgroup)

  • Author
    Replies
  • September 18, 2018 at 4:56 pm #130941

    Robert Hanisch
    Member

    Here is some work that my colleague in the NIST Library did in comparing the existing metadata schemas. I’m sorry that I cannot make the meeting tomorrow (and I still owe a use case!).
    Cheers,
    Bob
    Here’s a draft version. The cells are colored to visually group fields with similar types of information (though I haven’t found a great way to group them beyond this). GEOFON and ICOS are not listed in the spreadsheet because they do not make specific recommendations for fields in their use cases.
    The general consensus between these case studies is that there should be a persistent ID and a name attached to an instrument; beyond that there are widely different ideas about what metadata should be collected. I would say you can generally group the types of information requested in the following way (this isn’t an exhaustive list): Instrument (PID, Name, Manufacturer, Model Nos., dates of use, device type and category, description), Ownership (Name, Country, Dates of ownership, Organization PID), External references (Funding, related instruments, publications) and Miscellany (Output, characteristics, events, capabilities, observable properties).
    From: on behalf of “markus.stocker”
    Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:51 PM
    To: Persistent Identification of Instruments Group

    Subject: [pid-instruments] Next Call September 19, 2 pm UTC (Technical Subgroup)
    All,
    We will have our technical subgroup call tomorrow, Wednesday, September 19, at 2 pm UTC (4 pm CEST).
    Connection: https://webconf.vc.dfn.de/rf5zlnafulg5/
    Call notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uklV9JTfWPMa6gHcXSPndVNFAKlGzM2YLLP-…
    Cheers, m.

  • September 18, 2018 at 5:23 pm #130940

    Markus Stocker
    Member

    Bob,
    thanks for this, great analysis and very useful. Many thanks to your
    colleague. I will take a closer look tomorrow. I believe we can build on
    this as it seems a simple and sensible approach.
    Cheers, m.

  • Author
    Replies

Log in to reply.