The UNAVCO community is the most common creator of datasets in the UNAVCO repository. They need to be recognized for those contributions. Adding an identifier for the community increases the % of DOIs with complete connectivity from 6 to 30%.
Adding identifiers for organizations is an important step in the process of increasing connectivity in metadata collections. Organizations make many contributions to domain repositories so each identifier is used many times. In the UNAVCO case, thirty-five identifiers were used over two thousand times.
Domain repositories build strong communities of people and organizations that contribute data, expertise and scientific results. These communities thrive on active connections between data, papers, people, and organizations. Multiple contributions and real-world connections make domain repositories great places for adoption of identifiers and virtual connections that build the PID graph.
We are thrilled to announce that Metadata Game Changers is partnering with Openscapes, housed at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis on a new NASA-funded, three year project!
Measuring metadata completeness is a great way to identify good examples and low-hanging fruit for improvement. A Pidapalloza talk from last week described results from a recent assessment of 144 repositories from the TIB DataCite Consortium with respect to recommendations for FAIR metadata. Overall, the seven mandatory DataCite fields dominate these repositories, but several great examples that go beyond the mandatory were identified.
In honor of PIDapalooza 2021 and 25 hours of Persistent Identifier discussion happening today, we thought a post celebrating the power of PIDs for increasing connectivity and how to measure that connectivity is in order. Let’s party on 🥳 Discovery Before Conectivity (BC) : For many years we have thought about discovery in terms of web portals with text search boxes, maps, timelines, facets, or some other kind of interface.
It has been ten years since the release of the first DataCite metadata schema. Many improvements since then provide a roadmap for community evolution toward making DataCite metadata more FAIR.
The road to complete and consistent metadata can be long and arduous – digging through piles of metadata and other kinds of data to find small gems of information that can be added to metadata records, contacting recalcitrant researchers to fill in blanks, slowly building content across a collection… Does it really need to be that hard?
Looking for New Year’s metadata resolutions? How about: Stop using sentences that include the words “minimum metadata” without specifying a use case. Sentences that include the words “minimum metadata” come up frequently in metadata discussions, usually in the context of what a data provider wants to provide or, even more common, in the context of what should be expected of them.
DataCite subject metadata can play an important role in dataset classification and discovery, but these elements are uncommon in the repository and need some improvements. Establishing metrics for completeness and quality is an important first step in the improvement process.
Non-unique organizations and acronyms can cause problems in ROR searches. Use supporting information if you have it to get better results. If not, beware of theses gotchas.