The Research Data Alliance 6th Plenary last week discussed numerous topics very relevant to DataCite. Below is a short subjective list of topics I found interesting. If you attended RDA, feel free to add your thoughts in the comments. And if you didn’t attend, you can still provide feedback.

Yesterday DataCite and ePIC co-hosted the workshop Persistent Identifiers: Enabling Services for Data Intensive Research. Below is a short summary of the tweets, all using the hashtag #pid_paris. The last tweet shows the views from the reception. If you have any questions or comments about the event, use the hashtag #pid_paris on Twitter, or use the comments of this blog.

One of the first tasks for DataCite in the European Commission-funded THOR project, which started in June, was to contribute to a comparison of the ORCID and DataCite metadata standards.

We launched this blog six weeks ago on a hosted version of Ghost, the open source blogging platform. Ghost doesn’t have all the features of WordPress or other more mature blogging platforms, but it is a pleasure to use. The other alternative would have been to put the blog up on the Drupal-based main DataCite website, but Drupal is really a content-management system and usually not the best choice for a serious blog.

Last week Jennifer Lin shared information on the Making Data Count (MDC) project on this blog. MDC is a project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to design and develop metrics that track and measure data use – data-level metrics (DLM). Funding for the 12 month project ends October 1st, with a no-cost extension until March 1st.

CSV (comma-separated values) is a popular file format for data. It is popular because it is very simple: CSV is text-based and any application that can open text files can read or write CSV. This makes it a good fit for digital preservation. We don’t know how many of the datasets in DataCite use CSV because the format metadata attribute is not used much (this query gives you some examples), but we know that the number is big.

This is a guest post by Jennifer Lin, project manager for the Making Data Count project, and since last week CrossRef Director of Product Management. Counting is hard. But when it comes to research data, not in the way we thought it was (example 1, example 2, example 3). The Making Data Count (MDC) project aims to go further – measurement.

In the first post of this new blog a few weeks ago I talked about Data-Driven Development, and that service monitoring is an important aspect of this. The main service DataCite is providing is registration of digital object identifiers (DOIs) for scholarly content, in particular research data.

Today I am pleased to announce the launch of a new service, DataCite Labs Search – the service is available immediately at https://search.datacite.org/. This is one of THOR’s first services and is based on work in the earlier EC-funded ODIN Project. The ODIN project launched the DataCite/ORCID claiming tool in June 2013. The DataCite/ORCID claiming tool allows users to add works from the DataCite Metadata Store (MDS) to their ORCID profile.

Geoff Bilder from CrossRef likes to show the following slide at scholarly conferences, and then asks the audience what they see: Most of us probably immediately recognize this document as a scholarly article.

Today DataCite received an email from a user alerting us that there are some small inconsistencies with our recommended data citation format: Creator (PublicationYear): Title. Publisher. Identifier at https://www.datacite.org/services/cite-your-data.html Creator; (PublicationYear): Title; Publisher.