-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
DataCite Roles may not be a good match for DMP roles? #16
Comments
I think the best solution for us in this case is to drop the datacite dictionary. It can only lead to inconsistencies. I know also about this list of roles from the LOC: Basically, there is no single dictionary that would cover:
I think we should make the following changes: Then you will be able to say that Rob Hooft is a Manager and a Data Steward and you won’t be constrained by datacite. BTW, Now I see that the future work for RDA is really in defining the dictionaries. I don’t see though much enthusiasm to do it within the community. |
I agree that this is far from clear enough. I agree with Tomasz'z suggestion to drop the reference to DataCite for this property, and to change this to a string value. I will make this change now and close this issue. (I have already made the change to the cardinality of roles). |
Agreed, but I hope this does not cut off the route towards a new controlled vocabulary later. |
OK - I should not have closed the issue so have reopened it. I meant that we have made a short-term decision - but there is certainly a long-term issue to resolve! |
+1 for changing the cardinality of the contributor/role to 1..* Has there been a consensus on which ontology can be used to best describe contributor roles for a DMP? We will be supporting multiple roles per contributor in the DMPRoadmap data model. We are planning on using the CRediT taxonomy (for now at least) https://casrai.org/credit/.
Note that we're planning to convey a single contributor with multiple roles as: "contributors": [
{
"name": "Jane Doe",
"mbox": "[email protected]",
"role": "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation"
},
{
"name": "Jane Doe",
"mbox": "[email protected]",
"role": "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft"
}
] the above follows the current schema but we could easily convert over to the following in the future which seems a bit cleaner: "contributors": [
{
"name": "Jane Doe",
"mbox": "[email protected]",
"roles": [
"https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation",
"https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft"
]
}
] There is also an extension to that CRediT taxonomy here: https://github.com/data2health/contributor-role-ontology |
just realized that role is an array in the new schema v.1. Will switch to use the "contributors": [
{
"name": "Jane Doe",
"mbox": "[email protected]",
"role": [
"https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation",
"https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft"
]
}
] |
Hi all, I see that you suggest to use the Contributor-Role-Ontology (https://github.com/data2health/contributor-role-ontology) but the property is still set to datatype; you should change it back to object property to accept roles from a controlled vocabulary. Is there any chance you will do this soon? |
Hi Barbara, are you referring to make changes in this ontology: https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/tree/master/ontologies Or you mean changes in the recommendation in general? Cheers |
In the model, the contributor is a contributor to the DMP, not to the project, but the contributor.role vocabulary from datacite is defining "contributors" to a "resource": I interpret that as roles for a product of a project, not of the project or the DMP. The DMP /could/ be seen as a product(?)
Further: I have a hard time to identify e.g. a suitable role for the "data steward" in a project, e.g. the leader of a work package "data management" in a research project, "policing" the implementation of the data management plan. I now suggest "Data Curator" in the DS-Wizard, but it is a stretch of the definition.
Also: The allowed contributorTypes includes some "institutes" or "groups" rather than people. Groups and institutes are identified by other identifiers, certainly not ORCID.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: