@trobertson that is a good question. I would say yes, if you take both ROR and Grid into account. See also my blog post
https://dissco.tech/2020/04/11/identifiers-for-our-institutes-grid-and-ror/
ROR on its own is indeed not yet fully developed. It also does not yet have all the metadata that Grid has, but they are working on that. It does have all the records though and they keep the two in sync, at least for now. so there is a 1:1 relationship. The metadata is public domain in both. Grid is the mature brother that has the processes around data curation in place. However it is provided by a company, and may therefore not something to rely on in the long term. Therefore Ror was established, which is community driven and has a pretty strong support from the scholarly research community. I am not entirely confident about their business model though. But even if they fail or do not grow beyond providing an API on top of Grid, you can always fall back on Grid.
All institutes that are part of a RI or deliver data to a science infrastructure like GBIF can be seen as a research organization and are therefore in scope.
However some institutes do not have an identifier yet because they are part of a university that was then given the identifier. They can however ask for their own identifier and we did not experience any hurdles with that with the Synth+ partners in ELViS. Parent-child relations for organisation’s are supported.
The nat hist museum of Copenhagen is here: https://grid.ac/institutes/grid.507616.3 or https://ror.org/040ck2b86
I think Ror id was not yet synchronized back with grid but ror already got the grid id (grid is updated only every three months). They only applied for a grid identifier, a few months ago and already automatically got a Ror id.
Kind regards,
Wouter