Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Initial additions of orcid and ror #11

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jlaura
Copy link

@jlaura jlaura commented Oct 16, 2023

Adds ORCID and RoR identifiers.

A few items for discussion:

  • I am not happy with the rel type on the links. What is an appropriate rel type? cite-as does not make sense here, because they are not citable. These are identifiers for the authors and their institutions.
  • The tests on the updated collection and summaries collection will not pass while the stac-extensions entry is v1.0.0 and these changes are in an unreleased branch. What is the canonical way to make this update and have the CI test?

@@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ For Items, the fields are placed in the `properties`. For Collections, the field
| sci:doi | string | The DOI of the data, e.g. `10.1000/xyz123`. This MUST NOT be a DOIs link. For all DOI names respective DOI links SHOULD be added to the links section (see chapter "Relation types"). |
| sci:citation | string | The recommended human-readable reference (citation) to be used by publications citing the data. No specific citation style is suggested, but the citation should contain all information required to find the publication distinctively. |
| sci:publications | [[Publication Object](#publication-object)] | List of relevant publications referencing and describing the data. |
| sci:orcids | \[string] | An array of Open Researcher Contribution IDs ([ORCID](https://orcid.org)) associated with this product. For all ORCIDs a link SHOULD be added to the links section. |
| sci:ror s | \[string] | An array of Research Organization Record ([ROR](https://ror.org)) entity name or unique identifier. For all ROR(s) names and identifiers a link SHOULD be added to the links section. |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
| sci:ror s | \[string] | An array of Research Organization Record ([ROR](https://ror.org)) entity name or unique identifier. For all ROR(s) names and identifiers a link SHOULD be added to the links section. |
| sci:rors | \[string] | An array of Research Organization Record ([ROR](https://ror.org)) entity name or unique identifier. For all ROR(s) names and identifiers a link SHOULD be added to the links section. |

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to give some best practices here?
For example, sci:orcid makes sense in conjunction with the contacts extension and sci:ror seems to make most sense in the providers list, right?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. I was not aware of the contacts extension. I'll have to take a look at it. Should we have an example in the sci repo showing the usage with the contacts extension or is the intention that each extension is nominally stand alone?

@@ -69,6 +71,7 @@ The following types should be used as applicable `rel` types in the

| Type | Description |
| ------- | ----------- |
| author | An ORCID link SHOULD be added to the links section for the author(s) referenced by the `sci:orcids` property with the `rel` type `author`. (see [rel type author](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-author)) |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe separate ror and orcid relation types? We can probably just name the relation types ror and orcid...

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 I wasn't sure if relation types were managed by a standards organization. I'll use ror and orcid.

"href": "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2232-428X"
},
{
"rel": "related",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The docs say author, here it's related?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if we were limited to a defined set of rel types. I'll update.

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
## [Unreleased]

### Added

- sci:rors and sci:orcids to the item properties and collection fields. Fixes [#10](https://github.com/stac-extensions/scientific/issues/10)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- sci:rors and sci:orcids to the item properties and collection fields. Fixes [#10](https://github.com/stac-extensions/scientific/issues/10)
- `sci:rors` and `sci:orcids` to the item properties and collection fields. Fixes [#10](https://github.com/stac-extensions/scientific/issues/10)
- new relation type `author`

Or whatever you call the relation type based on the comments below.

@m-mohr
Copy link
Contributor

m-mohr commented Oct 16, 2023

The tests should automatically succeed, if your commits are valid. The validator will map to the local files.

The CI currently fails due to malformed files (e.g. indentation).

@m-mohr m-mohr marked this pull request as draft July 11, 2024 18:30
@m-mohr m-mohr linked an issue Jul 11, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider adding ORCID / ROR
2 participants