I think it is worth debating, and I have tried to explain why.
Very simply - public funders can encourage - or even mandate - the use of globally unique and persistent identifiers, without needing to hand a monopoly to one particular provider.
As an example - with the RIOXX recommendations we *mandate* that if an ID for a researcher is used then it *must* be an HTTP URI. We also *recommend* ORCID as an appropriate and good provider of such identifiers.
This seems to me to still be an entirely appropriate approach for a public funder.
Paul
> On 31 Aug 2017, at 16:18, Anna Clements <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I agree absolutely .. ORCID is community developed and an open standard.
>
> As a library/academic/public service community we are often criticised for not being able to deliver solutions to the problems we face ... think of all the current issues around Scholarly Communications .. so when something such as ORCID is developed surely we should be embracing it and urging all players to do so likewise.
>
> We talk about problems with interoperability ad infinitum but here we have something that does deliver and is being adopted as the de facto standard so why debate it .... ?
>
> Anna
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Anna Clements | Assistant Director (Digital Research)
>
> University of St Andrews Library | North Street | St Andrews | KY16 9TR|
> T:01334 462761 | @AnnaKClements
> From: Repositories discussion list <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Simeon Warner <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 31 August 2017 15:59:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Person Identifiers
>
> Disclaimer: I'm a founding director of ORCID
>
> I think REF _should_ mandate ORCID because it is the best way to achieve
> the Robustness, Transparency and Diversity goals of the "Responsible
> Metrics" approach [1]. I believe that the affordances and practicality
> of a single solution (as Neil mentioned) outweigh the concerns.
>
> Since creation, ORCID has been very sensitive to the need to balance
> utility with acceptability to all parties, because the goal of "a world
> where all who participate in research, scholarship, and innovation are
> uniquely identified and connected to their contributions across
> disciplines, borders, and time" [2] requires broad stakeholder buy-in.
> Specifically:
>
> * The scope of ORCID's mission [2] is constrained -- to provide
> identifiers and the infrastructure to use them -- so as to avoid
> competition with other interests as much as possible, and to allow a
> lean/sustainable solution.
>
> * The organization must be governed by the community in an open and
> trustworthy fashion -- ORCID is a membership organization (where the
> vast majority of members (73% @ end 2016) are research institutions),
> has an board election process, and requirements for majority non-profit
> board membership [3].
>
> * In the limit that something should go wrong with the organization
> there must be an exit strategy for the community -- this is addressed
> through ORCIDs principles [4] of releasing all data that researchers are
> willing to make public as CC0 (principle 7) and making all software open
> source (principle 8).
>
> * ORCID ids must be acceptable to researchers -- it is a key
> distinguishing feature of ORCID that individual researchers control the
> data in their record [4] (principles 5 and 6) and IMO a necessary
> compromise in utility to make it acceptable to mandate the use of ORCID.
> In essence one accepts that in order allow universal use of the id, some
> small fraction of researchers must be allowed to choose to hide their
> contributions (records might be kept in other systems, but not in
> ORCID). ORCID can be used simply as a bridge to identifiers in other
> systems.
>
> * If publishers and funders embrace the system then ids can be
> associated early in the publication and application processes which I
> like to call "ambiguity avoidance" rather than disambiguation -- this
> requires authentication APIs associated with the id, it will improve
> data quality and should be cheaper overall.
>
> I'll add that there is no "standard" for persistent, researcher
> controlled, HTTP identifiers and associated API/data to recommend for
> REF in place of a specifying one or more acceptable solutions. It would
> be relatively easy to write a specification for the technical aspects
> but regarding persistence one would probably end up with something like
> the Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) Checklist [5] and a corresponding
> audit process. To say "use an HTTP identifier" without addressing the
> persistence and API/data issues would be very unlikely to achieve much.
>
> Finally, ORCID is ours, if there are things that we need to change then
> let's talk about how to change them.
>
> Cheers,
> Simeon
>
> [1] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/
> [2] https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/mission
> [3] https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/governance
> [4] https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/principles
> [5] https://www.iso.org/standard/56510.html
>
>
> On 8/31/17 6:31 AM, WALK Paul wrote:
> > I agree entirely with your last paragraph - this is why I think that funders should emphasise this aspect. It doesn't matter which identifier scheme is used for a particular person so long as it is globally unique and persistent.
> >
> > While I understand the desire to ensure that only one identifier is used for a given person (and I agree with you that this is never going to be perfectly achieved), I don't think that mandating a single scheme is necessary to improve this situation.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >> On 31 Aug 2017, at 11:16, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> In the interests of transparency, I’ve been part of the UK ORCID Support team [3] for the last 12-18 months.
> >>
> >> I think the question of the underlying purpose of having identifiers mandated for REF is relevant here.
> >>
> >> This thread started in relation to the lack of identifiers, the variability of names (for the same person), and a limitation in a particular piece of software (eprints) meaning that it was difficult to link up the publications for a single person where their name had changed or had variant forms across publications - specifically when reporting for REF.
> >>
> >> In this case if REF were to mandate the use of identifiers, I think the key would be the same identifier was used for a single person across all data submitted to REF - so the use case is matching up data from a variety of sources to the same person. In this case specifying which identifier scheme/namespace is to be used seems like a good choice - otherwise we risk different identifiers being used for the same person across data sources - which puts us in a position only a little better than our original one. In this scenario ORCID seems like a reasonable choice, although ISNI or some other scheme would work just as well. (n.b. potentially ORCIDs could become ISNIs if agreement could be reached [1].
> >>
> >> However, if the use case requires the retrieval of data from a resolvable identifier, then stating a standard for the data to be retrieved, the format of the data, and the mechanism for resolving would seem like a better approach, rather than specifying a particular identifier scheme. In this case the identifier scheme isn’t really relevant. While ORCID might be a reasonable scheme here, and has (of course) a single data format and mechanism, the data available from the registry can vary considerably. This type of problem is why communities have started to define profiles (e.g. RIOXX [2]) which can be used to define the data that should be retrievable.
> >>
> >> For the work I’ve generally been involved with, having a single identifier I can use to match up people would be the stronger use case, and in general I wouldn’t care what it was as long as it meant a good approximation to there being a single identifier for each person (it will never be perfect in this regard!), and I think this would probably be the key for REF as well, but I'm making assumptions based on my own experience, and there are other scenarios of course.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >> 1. https://orcid.org/blog/2013/04/22/orcid-and-isni-issue-joint-statement-interoperation-april-2013
> >> 2. http://rioxx.net
> >> 3. http://ukorcidsupport.jisc.ac.uk
> >>
> >> Owen Stephens
> >> Owen Stephens Consulting
> >> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> >> Email: [log in to unmask]
> >> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
> >>
> >>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 10:56, Paul Walk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think the fact that the software and data are open is a bit of a red-herring in this case - the potential monopolistic position for ORCID lies largely in the ownership of the orcid.org domain. This is, of course, not particular to ORCID, but a feature of the Web in general.
> >>>
> >>> It's nice that the ORCID software and data are open (to some extent) but it doesn't address the risk of "lock-in" to the ORCID system.
> >>>
> >>> I do agree with that there is a trade-off between convenience and the risks inherent in monopolistic control. I also agree that some providers are preferable to others, in terms of their organisational structure.
> >>>
> >>> I would still refer that public funders recommend the use of standards, rather than particular products/services. The academy, libraries etc. can then decide what compromises they are willing to make.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 10:37, Neil Jefferies <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ORCID is only bound to a single supplier out of convenience - it can be easily replicated (the software and data are open) but there is no economic or political case for doing so. Since it additionally provides useful services and standardisation of data that generic URI's don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> In practice, a map of the Semantic Web indicates that aggregators and standardisers of data naturally arise and become major nodes because of this convenience factor - it *is* basically the same reason that libraries exist after all.
> >>>>
> >>>> An aggregator such as ORCID that is more open (and as an operating entity is structured to ensure that is the case) is preferable to a for-profit controlled enterprise like ResearcherID.
> >>>>
> >>>> Neil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Walk
> >>>> Sent: 31 August 2017 09:54
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd be a bit worried if we started to regard ORCID as a 'standard'. ORCID is a single solution, belonging to a single supplier.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of the benefits of true standards is to mitigate the threat of "lock-in" to a single supplier's product or service.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why I argued that the REF guidelines ought to recommend a standard - e.g. HTTP URIs, rather than a particular service or product - e.g. ORCID.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 09:46, Jez Cope <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think there's a tension here though between pragmatism and functionality. The advantage of singling out a specific standard is that you can then rely on the additional affordances of that standard. ORCID has a useful API that allows the extraction of additional information about the owner of the ID. Such things are possible in other ways for generic HTTP(S) URIs, but there is no standard way of doing so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jez
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 25/08/17 15:01, Paul Walk wrote:
> >>>>>> At the risk of seeming pedantic, I think it would be better if REF mandated the use of global, persistent identifiers (preferably HTTP URIs), rather than singling out ORCID. Other identifier schemes are available and new ones will undoubtedly appear, and it should make no difference so long as they are global and persistent.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 25 Aug 2017, at 14:36, Bev Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Tom, Diana and All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are quite right, Tom, the picture isn’t really complete without mention of ORCID. We’re working towards ORCID being the identifier underlying authors in most systems (as our institutional identifier does now). It will be a shame if ORCID isn’t mandatory for REF, but it will still be useful for organising outputs for submission. Your linked data sounds lovely!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Many thanks,
> >>>>>>> Bev Jones!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://research.lincoln.ac.uk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Research Repository and Information Officer University of Lincoln
> >>>>>>> Library x6721
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Thomas Elliott [
> >>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>> ]
> >>>>>>> Sent: 25 August 2017 13:48
> >>>>>>> To: Bev Jones
> >>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hope this reply is not too tangential:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At ISAW, we are working toward integrating bibliographic citation (both print and digital), digital archiving, and research/website profile/content across our entire community of faculty, staff, students, visiting scholars, and alumni. In bibliographic records and archive metadata records, our policy is to maintain the name as written in the context of the original publication, but we’ll be tying discovery and presentation together across resources, citations, platforms, etc. using OrcIDs. Our linked data includes both OrcID and VIAF.org (where available) URIs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Tom Elliott, Ph.D.
> >>>>>>> Associate Director for Digital Programs and Senior Research Scholar
> >>>>>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (NYU)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://isaw.nyu.edu/people/staff/tom-elliott
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Humanities Commons: @paregorios
> >>>>>>> OrcID: 0000-0002-4114-6677
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Bev Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Diana,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As it is a bibliographical record we always try to list the authors as they appear on the original item. We also prefer to keep just one record for each item. We’ve had an author who uses six variants of one name, and one who uses three completely different names for professional reasons, as well as a number of people who have simply changed their name (but often neglected to tell us) so we have come up against this before.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We now have a system where the authors have a staff ID, and once that number is there the name can be changed; I’ve attached a couple of images of the workflow, you can see me change my name in the ‘Creators’ field. However, before we did that we got around it with square brackets in the Creator field, so it rendered the author Jones, Bev [writing as Mouse, Mickey], or Mouse, Mickey [formerly Jones, Bev], whichever is most appropriate. This might be best for you, although I’d be interested to see what anyone else can suggest. Do ask for more details if I’m not making sense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Many thanks,
> >>>>>>> Bev Jones!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://research.lincoln.ac.uk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Research Repository and Information Officer University of Lincoln
> >>>>>>> Library x6721
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Repositories discussion list [
> >>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Diana Hilmer
> >>>>>>> Sent: 25 August 2017 12:05
> >>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subject:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was wondering if someone could help me. I have a researcher who recently changed her name. Is there a way on ePrints to connect her old name details with her new ones or would you keep it as two different records and make sure that both versions will be included for the same author in REF?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you and kind regards
> >>>>>>> Diana
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Diana Hilmer
> >>>>>>> Assistant Librarian
> >>>>>>> Franciscan Library
> >>>>>>> The University of Buckingham
> >>>>>>> Buckingham, MK18 1EG
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tel: 01280 828369, Internal: 3369
> >>>>>>> Email
> >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The University of Buckingham
> >>>>>>> • Top in the UK for student satisfaction since 2006
> >>>>>>> • Top in the UK for Teaching Quality
> >>>>>>> • Top in the UK for Student-Staff Ratio
> >>>>>>> • Top in the UK for Student Experience
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The University of Lincoln, located in the heart of the city of Lincoln, has established an international reputation based on high student satisfaction, excellent graduate employment and world-class research.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and remove it from your system. Do not disclose the contents to another person or take copies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Email is not secure and may contain viruses. The University of Lincoln makes every effort to ensure email is sent without viruses, but cannot guarantee this and recommends recipients take appropriate precautions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The University may monitor email traffic data and content in accordance with its policies and English law. Further information can be found at:
> >>>>>>> http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/legal
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> Paul Walk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.paulwalk.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Jez Cope
> >>>>> Research Data Manager
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The University Library
> >>>>> The University of Sheffield
> >>>>> Sheffield S10 2TN
> >>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Tel: 0114 22 27221
> >>>>> Twitter: @jezcope
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>> Paul Walk
> >>>> http://www.paulwalk.net
> >>>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >>> Paul Walk
> >>> http://www.paulwalk.net
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Paul Walk
> > Head of Technology Strategy and Planning
> > EDINA, University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.edina.ac.uk
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
-------------------------------------------
Paul Walk
http://www.paulwalk.net
-------------------------------------------
|
