This is a thread to follow up on a topic we started discussing during the April GRSciColl community call (you can check the recording here: Global Registry of Scientific Collections (GRSciColl) community call - April 2024 on Vimeo).
A few months ago (November 2023), we ran a survey to collect input on the GRSciColl data schema in order to update it (this is in the context of our road map work).
At the time, 8 responders gave us feedback on GRSciColl identifiers.
- Most people agree that we need to add context for the identifiers (and identifier types) available on GRSciColl. Unless you are familiar with the world of identifiers, what you see on GRSciColl might be difficult to navigate.
- Most people also agreed that it would help to have a “how to cite” section on GRSciColl institution and collection pages so people know exactly what to cite (which identifier).
- At the time, most responder also said that GRSciColl wouldn’t need to mint DOIs for GRSciColl entries.
During our community call on Wednesday this week, the question of preferred identifiers and DOIs came back. I would like to have a bit more input on the topic.
What do you think should be the preferred identifiers to reference institutions and collections on GRSciColl?
Here are a few ideas discussed during the call and a poll:
- Institutions should be able to choose which identifier people should be used for referencing their entries.
- The preferred identifiers should be (at least by default) GRSciColl URLs. The advantage being that this is something created and maintained by GBIF, it doesn’t rely on external sources.
- The preferred identifiers should be RORs for institutions. This is a position that have been voiced multiple times. However it relies on two things:
- Institution (or someone) making sure that the correct ROR identifiers are in GRSciColl for the correct entries (right now about 6% of the institutions have a ROR id in GRSciColl).
- That ROR maintain those identifiers
- The preferred identifiers should be DOIs for collection. With the caveat that minting DOIs has a cost, perhaps this could be for institutions who request them only (maybe with a button in the GRSciColl interface?)
- The preferred identifiers should be something else? ARK identifiers were mentioned during the call:
-
ARKs are generic and persistent. The good thing is that they are completely free. The are most often used in heritage field but should be adaptable for natural collections. See https://arks.org/
-
What do you think? Feel free to vote here and/or comment. Many thanks!
- Institutions should be able to choose for themselves
- GRSciColl URLs/UUIDs should be the default
- ROR for institutions
- DOIs (minted by GRSciColl) for collections
- Others (ARK?)