Open MarekSuchanek opened 4 years ago
If we changed the cardinality of dataset_id, would it also solve the issue #33 ? That is, a list of identifiers would include "historical" identifiers and current.
I think it would - if to 0..n
. Of course, I am not then sure if there would be also need to distinguish also current, historical, or even reserved identifiers somehow.
I can see the usefulness of allowing for alternate/additional identifiers. I think we need to understand the use cases.
If the primary use case is to allow for historical identifiers (versions) of an object we could perhaps introduce something like a related_identifiers
array. This is a common pattern and I think could solve most cases. For example:
{
"related_identifiers": [
{ "type": "doi", "identifier": "10.123/1234abc", "relation_type": "is_version_of" }
]
}
I'm not sure what ontology would be most appropriate for the relation_type
.
I can see the usefulness of allowing for alternate/additional identifiers. I think we need to understand the use cases.
If the primary use case is to allow for historical identifiers (versions) of an object we could perhaps introduce something like a
related_identifiers
array. This is a common pattern and I think could solve most cases. For example:{ "related_identifiers": [ { "type": "doi", "identifier": "10.123/1234abc", "relation_type": "is_version_of" } ] }
I'm not sure what ontology would be most appropriate for the
relation_type
.
dct: isVersionOf
While I don't disagree with the reasoning here, I would like to push back a little against the idea of handling multiple IDs and especially of modelling their sematics in the DMP Common Standard. While I agree that all of these things exist, the question for us to consider is:
"Do we need to model these things to enable the exchange of semantically useful DMPs?"
I would like to argue that using a single ID (consistently) is enough to achieve this. If some one wants to relate multiple IDs together, that can be done outside of the DMP standard.
During adjusting our model with @rwwh, we found out that for dataset having exactly one "dataset_id" is too limiting.