Surely you're not suggesting that a national funder will make better 'business' decisions than our academic institutions ;-)

> On 31 Aug 2017, at 11:16, Neil Jefferies <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> History tells us that the academy and libraries have been very poor at making such decisions - which is obviously a bit of an embarrassment to me, given where I am! 
> 
> As such, I have grown to favour what works over what is ideal - "rough consensus and working code". It's much easier to prevent link rot of ORCID's (by having a single target, or a simple, globally applied redirect rule when the time comes) over cleaning URI's spread all over the place with varying levels of degradation and API churn.
> 
> ...I'm getting old and cynical, maybe.
> 
> Neil
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Walk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 31 August 2017 10:57
> To: Neil Jefferies <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 
> 
> 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
http://www.paulwalk.net
-------------------------------------------