kobbejager
commented
1 month ago I like the idea behind protocols.io and it's free ("forever") for public protocols. However, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to enforce service providers to register their protocols on a third party platform. Also, having a standard method description within Cordra, makes it much more easy to work with and refer to in relation to the complete data lifecycle and data management.
That being said, our method schema allows to add method_documentation in the form of a URL, which could very well point to the DOI of a protocol.io record. This might be tucked away too much. I wouldn't mind giving protocols.io DOIs a more prominent role in the schema and encourage its use.
The schema in its current form is difficult to characterise each analytical method.
For instance, many methods would follow sequential steps like those in chemical experiments (step 1, step 2, step 3, etc.). We can achieve it by creating a protocol at www.protocols.io where people can get doi for their methods and link them to our system.
The second issue is the certificated reference materials. These are important parameters to be reported in many types of instruments (SEM, EPMA, XRF, and ICP-MS), especially chemical and isotopic compositions.
For example, a reference material for a copper alloy could have a list of certified values that should be documented in our system. It will consist of the name of this standard, its values, analytical errors, and a certified document.