Funding details could be added to source id entries

[matthew-mizielinski]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W8f93XKlCxtDCvbCgq_1C7Dls6qICUUg-KZ4aNI-CgY/edit#gid=13495375 row 24

@MartinaSt could you propose the fields to declare funding for models

[MartinaSt]

I suggest to add a section on funding information to source_id:

"funding":[ {"funder_name":"", "crossref_funder_id":"", "award_title":"", "award_number":""} ]

[durack1]

@MartinaSt it would be useful to consider this again, as we do have the ROR entries in place, what was your thinking on this, e.g.
https://github.com/PCMDI/mip-cmor-tables/blob/main/MIP_institutions.json#L578-L609

@wolfiex ping

[MartinaSt]

@durack1 I am not sure if I understand what you ask from me. Therefore two comments:

• ROR in institution_id: The new structure looks good to me. I had only raised concerns in case information from the ROR record is included in the CV because then regular updates or a pushed updates from ROR are required to keep them in sync. The ROR id can be used by services like the citation service to distinguish between added and updated institution entries.
• source_id and funding details: Funding details should be added to source_id and not institution_id as funding changes over the CMIP phases. A unique (unchanging) ID for each source_id entry should be added to enable automated procedures to distinguish between updated and added source_id entries.

[durack1]

@MartinaSt thanks for the perspective. Agreed about the ROR updates, we already have well used acronyms (e.g. MOHC) that are not currently registered by the ROR system, so we will likely need to request their addition and see how well this can be synced.

Good point about the source_id and funding details, as source_id most regularly gets updated and should more accurately reflect the funding for the era of model use, rather than the institution which in some cases extends back decades