The current specification of the standard has many fields defined as Strings, because there was no standard vocabulary to be used by the whole community. For example, Dataset\type can be set to any String value. This is because there are different vocabularies with the RDM community. For example, DataCite and COAR define vocabularies of types of datasets.
There is a need for a group that would analyse maDMP specification in view of fields for which establishing a common vocabulary would be needed and would be possible. This can result in developments after the hackathon - maybe an RDA WG should be established for that purpose? Dataset\type is just an example of alignment needed.
The current specification of the standard has many fields defined as Strings, because there was no standard vocabulary to be used by the whole community. For example, Dataset\type can be set to any String value. This is because there are different vocabularies with the RDM community. For example, DataCite and COAR define vocabularies of types of datasets.
There is a need for a group that would analyse maDMP specification in view of fields for which establishing a common vocabulary would be needed and would be possible. This can result in developments after the hackathon - maybe an RDA WG should be established for that purpose? Dataset\type is just an example of alignment needed.