DataCite Roles may not be a good match for DMP roles?

[rwwh]

In the model, the contributor is a contributor to the DMP, not to the project, but the contributor.role vocabulary from datacite is defining "contributors" to a "resource": I interpret that as roles for a product of a project, not of the project or the DMP. The DMP /could/ be seen as a product(?)

Further: I have a hard time to identify e.g. a suitable role for the "data steward" in a project, e.g. the leader of a work package "data management" in a research project, "policing" the implementation of the data management plan. I now suggest "Data Curator" in the DS-Wizard, but it is a stretch of the definition.

Also: The allowed contributorTypes includes some "institutes" or "groups" rather than people. Groups and institutes are identified by other identifiers, certainly not ORCID.

[TomMiksa]

I think the best solution for us in this case is to drop the datacite dictionary. It can only lead to inconsistencies. I know also about this list of roles from the LOC: https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html But it also does not solve the problem

Basically, there is no single dictionary that would cover:

• Roles of people involved in managing data
• Contributors to the DMP Splitting these into two concepts would not really help either.

I think we should make the following changes: Contributor/role -> Data type set to String instead of Controlled Vocabulary Contributor/role -> Cardinality set to 1..* so that one person could have multiple roles

Then you will be able to say that Rob Hooft is a Manager and a Data Steward and you won’t be constrained by datacite.

BTW, Now I see that the future work for RDA is really in defining the dictionaries. I don’t see though much enthusiasm to do it within the community.

[paulwalk]

I agree that this is far from clear enough. I agree with Tomasz'z suggestion to drop the reference to DataCite for this property, and to change this to a string value. I will make this change now and close this issue. (I have already made the change to the cardinality of roles).

[rwwh]

Agreed, but I hope this does not cut off the route towards a new controlled vocabulary later.

[paulwalk]

OK - I should not have closed the issue so have reopened it. I meant that we have made a short-term decision - but there is certainly a long-term issue to resolve!

[briri]

+1 for changing the cardinality of the contributor/role to 1..*

Has there been a consensus on which ontology can be used to best describe contributor roles for a DMP?

We will be supporting multiple roles per contributor in the DMPRoadmap data model. We are planning on using the CRediT taxonomy (for now at least) https://casrai.org/credit/. In particular:

• the 'Data curation' role for the 'contact' of the DMP (although this feels like a bit of a stretch)
• 'Writing - original draft', 'Writing - review & editing' for authors, editors and reviewers of the DMP
• 'Investigation' to identify principal investigator(s)
• perhaps a few others like 'Project administration' and 'Supervision'

Note that we're planning to convey a single contributor with multiple roles as:

  "contributors": [
    { 
      "name": "Jane Doe", 
      "mbox": "jane.doe@example.org", 
      "role": "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation" 
     },
    {
      "name": "Jane Doe", 
      "mbox": "jane.doe@example.org", 
      "role": "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft" 
     }
  ]

the above follows the current schema but we could easily convert over to the following in the future which seems a bit cleaner:

  "contributors": [
    { 
      "name": "Jane Doe", 
      "mbox": "jane.doe@example.org", 
      "roles": [ 
        "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation", 
        "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft"
      ] 
    }
  ]

There is also an extension to that CRediT taxonomy here: https://github.com/data2health/contributor-role-ontology

[briri]

just realized that role is an array in the new schema v.1. Will switch to use the

"contributors": [
    { 
      "name": "Jane Doe", 
      "mbox": "jane.doe@example.org", 
      "role": [ 
        "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Investigation", 
        "https://dictionary.casrai.org/Contributor_Roles/Writing_original_draft"
      ] 
    }
  ]

[mabablue]

I think the best solution for us in this case is to drop the datacite dictionary. It can only lead to inconsistencies. I know also about this list of roles from the LOC: https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html But it also does not solve the problem

Basically, there is no single dictionary that would cover:

• Roles of people involved in managing data
• Contributors to the DMP Splitting these into two concepts would not really help either.

I think we should make the following changes: Contributor/role -> Data type set to String instead of Controlled Vocabulary Contributor/role -> Cardinality set to 1..* so that one person could have multiple roles

Then you will be able to say that Rob Hooft is a Manager and a Data Steward and you won’t be constrained by datacite.

BTW, Now I see that the future work for RDA is really in defining the dictionaries. I don’t see though much enthusiasm to do it within the community.

Hi all, I see that you suggest to use the Contributor-Role-Ontology (https://github.com/data2health/contributor-role-ontology) but the property is still set to datatype; you should change it back to object property to accept roles from a controlled vocabulary. Is there any chance you will do this soon?

[TomMiksa]

Hi Barbara,

are you referring to make changes in this ontology: https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/tree/master/ontologies

Or you mean changes in the recommendation in general?

Cheers Tomasz