We should reevaluate the metadata we receive that feeds the repository, license and metadata standard lists.
For example:
we might be able to make use of the selected ‘research domain’ (e.g. Biological sciences), the selected ‘research output type’ (e.g. Software) to filter the repositories list by tags.
We might be able to make use of the DMP owner's organizational affiliation to highlight institutional repositories.
Based on the selected repository(ies), we should then be able to refine the license and metadata standard options
For example, the CaltechDATA repository could be ‘preferred’ for researchers from the California Institute of Technology; the Ecosounds could be ‘recommended’ if the selected research domain is ‘Biological Sciences’ and the output type is ‘Audiovisual’
briri
commented
8 months ago
We should reevaluate the metadata we receive that feeds the repository, license and metadata standard lists.
For example:
For an example of re3data metadata see: https://www.re3data.org/repository/r3d100012384
For example, the CaltechDATA repository could be ‘preferred’ for researchers from the California Institute of Technology; the Ecosounds could be ‘recommended’ if the selected research domain is ‘Biological Sciences’ and the output type is ‘Audiovisual’