search

pulibrary / RDOS_Publishing

Ticket incubation for the portfolio of infrastructures used by Research Data and Open Scholarship (RDOS) to publish research and scholary objects.
1 stars 0 forks source link

Describe Form: Additional Metadata (tab details) #7

Open hhkitsune opened 2 years ago

hhkitsune commented 2 years ago

Description

Depositors and curators will be able to manually enter information to these fields. The fields may be groups to package top properties with their subproperties. These properties may be filled in optionally. Below is a list of the metadata properties that will be included under this tab. (note: one property is not Datacite, but we want it. Suggest using the Dublin Core version.)

Datacite properties to include:

Other Schema:

Image shows what users will see

Screen Shot 2022-09-20 at 5 05 19 PM

Screen Shot 2022-09-20 at 5 05 30 PM

jrgriffiniii commented 2 years ago

As confirmed on 09/21/22, Related Identifier should be restricted to URI values. Form-based validation should ensure that the value is a valid http://, ftp://, or other resource.

kelynch commented 2 years ago

Per our conversation during feature refinement, here are some examples of research data items in DataSpace that appear to have funder/funding metadata (not mapped to DataCite in the current system):

hhkitsune commented 2 years ago

Thanks @kelynch! These are PPPL submissions, so let's check with Chun about how these would fit into Datacite.

@astrochun, We are examining how to transcribe the funder information in these records to Datacite. We are currently assuming to use the following properties for Funding Reference. (note: We will eventually have all of Datacite, but this is what we anticipate to start with.):

Do you see the information in your currently published records fitting into these fields? Please let us know if you see a need (in the near future vs waiting a bit for the full Datacite schema to be properly added) for additional or different fields for the properties under Funding Reference. Thanks!

astrochun commented 2 years ago

Chun, does OSTI have a position on this?

Aileen Pritch Manager, Institutional Requirements & Research Products Performance Assurance and Contract Management Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Office: 609-243-2245 Cell: 848-203-4005 @.***

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 9:34 AM Chun Ly @.***> wrote:

Hannah and Kate,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've CC-ed Aileen so she's aware. You bring up an interesting point of how to disclose funding metadata. I can show how DOE does this for those records in question. I believe DOE/OSTI has taken an easier approach of populating identifiers fields in the DataCite metadata schema for funding instead of using any specific funding field.

Here are two DataSpace datasets with DOI minting from DOE: 88435/dsp011g05ff77b: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888276 88435/dsp013j3335393: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888262

As you can see, a separate identifiers field is provided with the grants numbers.

Regarding the original question, having additional metadata of who the funder is and a URI to the grant is a good idea as Crossref and a number of open infrastructures are moving in this direction with RORs and other persistent identifiers. However, I'm not sure how feasible this is for all grants. While most PPPL funding is from DOE, there are separate sub-divisions (e.g., Office of Science), and there are also non-DOE funding such as NASA and NSF. Also, I'm not sure if our prime contract grant (DE-AC02-09CH11466) has a URI. I would not consider having full funding metadata as MVP, but it could be something that we need in the future with the push for NSPM-33 to use persistent identifiers (we had received inquiries from DOE on our current use of persistent identifiers - ORCID, ROR, grants, etc.).

Award DOIs have been discussed by the DOE community, but it's used sparingly at the moment. DOE has the following service that PPPL has not used: https://www.osti.gov/award-doi-service/. I know of only two labs that have begun to experiment with this for their user facilities.

Cheers,

  • Chun

Research Data Developer Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Performance Assurance & Contract Management ORCID: 0000-0002-4245-2318 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2318

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:12 AM Hannah H @.***> wrote:

Thanks @kelynch https://github.com/kelynch! These are PPPL submissions, so let's check with Chun about how these would fit into Datacite.

@astrochun https://github.com/astrochun, We are examining how to transcribe the funder information in these records to Datacite. We are currently assuming to use the following properties for Funding Reference https://support.datacite.org/docs/datacite-metadata-schema-v44-recommended-and-optional-properties#19-fundingreference. (note: We will eventually have all of Datacite, but this is what we anticipate to start with.):

  • Funder Name
  • Award Number
  • Award URI

Do you see the information in your currently published records fitting into these fields? Please let us know if you see a need (in the near future vs waiting a bit for the full Datacite schema to be properly added) for additional or different fields for the properties under Funding Reference. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pulibrary/RDOS_Publishing/issues/7#issuecomment-1268772948, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE25ORQDQ23EXJPCGQREFFTWBXAI3ANCNFSM6AAAAAAQROTYHQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

astrochun commented 2 years ago

Not sure why my response via email did not show up here, but I see Aileen's response so see above for my full initial response.

astrochun commented 2 years ago

Aileen,

My recollection from a few months ago when the Award DOI was discussed at one of the community calls is that they would like to see more labs adopt the Award DOIs, but it was still in the early stages of awareness for many labs. I think many labs currently don't have the bandwidth and would rather see a few labs (PNNL for example) lead the way before making a decision. At that time, it wasn't apparent to me how we would entirely use the Award DOI service since I think PNNL is providing grants/sub-grants(?) for users. Namely, they have a separate award number and thus tracking it via an Award DOI makes sense.

If you think we should reach out to them now and explain our current scenario with our data repository, I can reach out.

Cheers,

Research Data Developer Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Performance Assurance & Contract Management ORCID: 0000-0002-4245-2318 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2318

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:53 AM Aileen Pritch @.***> wrote:

Chun, does OSTI have a position on this?

Aileen Pritch Manager, Institutional Requirements & Research Products Performance Assurance and Contract Management Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Office: 609-243-2245 Cell: 848-203-4005 @.***

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 9:34 AM Chun Ly @.***> wrote:

Hannah and Kate,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've CC-ed Aileen so she's aware. You bring up an interesting point of how to disclose funding metadata. I can show how DOE does this for those records in question. I believe DOE/OSTI has taken an easier approach of populating identifiers fields in the DataCite metadata schema for funding instead of using any specific funding field.

Here are two DataSpace datasets with DOI minting from DOE: 88435/dsp011g05ff77b: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888276 88435/dsp013j3335393: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888262

As you can see, a separate identifiers field is provided with the grants numbers.

Regarding the original question, having additional metadata of who the funder is and a URI to the grant is a good idea as Crossref and a number of open infrastructures are moving in this direction with RORs and other persistent identifiers. However, I'm not sure how feasible this is for all grants. While most PPPL funding is from DOE, there are separate sub-divisions (e.g., Office of Science), and there are also non-DOE funding such as NASA and NSF. Also, I'm not sure if our prime contract grant (DE-AC02-09CH11466) has a URI. I would not consider having full funding metadata as MVP, but it could be something that we need in the future with the push for NSPM-33 to use persistent identifiers (we had received inquiries from DOE on our current use of persistent identifiers - ORCID, ROR, grants, etc.).

Award DOIs have been discussed by the DOE community, but it's used sparingly at the moment. DOE has the following service that PPPL has not used: https://www.osti.gov/award-doi-service/. I know of only two labs that have begun to experiment with this for their user facilities.

Cheers,

  • Chun

Research Data Developer Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Performance Assurance & Contract Management ORCID: 0000-0002-4245-2318 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2318

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:12 AM Hannah H @.***> wrote:

Thanks @kelynch https://github.com/kelynch! These are PPPL submissions, so let's check with Chun about how these would fit into Datacite.

@astrochun https://github.com/astrochun, We are examining how to transcribe the funder information in these records to Datacite. We are currently assuming to use the following properties for Funding Reference https://support.datacite.org/docs/datacite-metadata-schema-v44-recommended-and-optional-properties#19-fundingreference. (note: We will eventually have all of Datacite, but this is what we anticipate to start with.):

  • Funder Name
  • Award Number
  • Award URI

Do you see the information in your currently published records fitting into these fields? Please let us know if you see a need (in the near future vs waiting a bit for the full Datacite schema to be properly added) for additional or different fields for the properties under Funding Reference. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pulibrary/RDOS_Publishing/issues/7#issuecomment-1268772948, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE25ORQDQ23EXJPCGQREFFTWBXAI3ANCNFSM6AAAAAAQROTYHQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

hhkitsune commented 2 years ago

@astrochun Thanks so much for this information!

Yes, being able to facilitate property fields to describe complete funding will probably take us beyond the MVP. In the short term we don't want to lose what has already been entered for records in DataSpace.

Regarding the funder info properties that we are planning to have in the MVP, please let us know if the following translation from what is currently recorded in DataSpace to funder properties in Describe is correct:

Example of funder info in DataSpace for a PPPL submission:

dc.contributor.funder | U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC02- 09CH11466)

Proposed translation to our available funder properties in Describe (note: These are optional properties to fill in, so it's ok to leave blank when needed):

Funder Name: U.S. Department of Energy

Award Number: DE-AC02- 09CH11466

astrochun commented 2 years ago

Hannah,

Regarding PPPL's prime contract number, there's no space: DE-AC02-09CH11466

I had discussed with Kate that it seems that some PPPL Collections have it encoded and some didn't in DataSpace. I think we would want this encoded by default for all PPPL submissions in any PPPL collection in PDC-Describe.

One suggestion: It seems that the UI would have only a single entry for a grant. I would recommend changing this to allow for multiple grants. Some PPPL research have funding through multiple sources. I suspect PU researchers do as well. So instead of a vertical layout, I recommend horizontal with the ability to add additional rows, much like how you do with creator/author metadata. This will provide the greatest granularity.

Cheers,

Research Data Developer Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Performance Assurance & Contract Management ORCID: 0000-0002-4245-2318 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2318

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:11 AM Hannah H @.***> wrote:

@astrochun https://github.com/astrochun Thanks so much for this information!

Yes, being able to facilitate property fields to describe complete funding will probably take us beyond the MVP. In the short term we don't want to lose what has already been entered for records in DataSpace.

Regarding the funder into properties that we are planning to have in the MVP, please let us know if the following translation from what is currently recorded in DataSpace to funder properties in Describe is correct: Example of funder info in DataSpace for a PPPL submission:

dc.contributor.funder | U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC02- 09CH11466) Proposed translation to our available funder properties in Describe (note: These are optional properties to fill in, so it's ok to leave blank when needed):

Funder Name: U.S. Department of Energy

Award Number: DE-AC02- 09CH11466

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pulibrary/RDOS_Publishing/issues/7#issuecomment-1270237077, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE25ORTDVGEXFCEOF7HZUZ3WB3TYHANCNFSM6AAAAAAQROTYHQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

hhkitsune commented 2 years ago

@kelynch and others Please let me know if you have further comment on this. Otherwise I'm going to start a ticket with the following information:

Funder information Metadata:

astrochun commented 2 years ago

Hannah and Kate,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've CC-ed Aileen so she's aware. You bring up an interesting point of how to disclose funding metadata. I can show how DOE does this for those records in question. I believe DOE/OSTI has taken an easier approach of populating identifiers fields in the DataCite metadata schema for funding instead of using any specific funding field.

Here are two DataSpace datasets with DOI minting from DOE: 88435/dsp011g05ff77b: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888276 88435/dsp013j3335393: https://api.datacite.org/dois/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.11578/1888262

As you can see, a separate identifiers field is provided with the grants numbers.

Regarding the original question, having additional metadata of who the funder is and a URI to the grant is a good idea as Crossref and a number of open infrastructures are moving in this direction with RORs and other persistent identifiers. However, I'm not sure how feasible this is for all grants. While most PPPL funding is from DOE, there are separate sub-divisions (e.g., Office of Science), and there are also non-DOE funding such as NASA and NSF. Also, I'm not sure if our prime contract grant (DE-AC02-09CH11466) has a URI. I would not consider having full funding metadata as MVP, but it could be something that we need in the future with the push for NSPM-33 to use persistent identifiers (we had received inquiries from DOE on our current use of persistent identifiers - ORCID, ROR, grants, etc.).

Award DOIs have been discussed by the DOE community, but it's used sparingly at the moment. DOE has the following service that PPPL has not used: https://www.osti.gov/award-doi-service/. I know of only two labs that have begun to experiment with this for their user facilities.

Cheers,

Research Data Developer Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Performance Assurance & Contract Management ORCID: 0000-0002-4245-2318 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2318

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:12 AM Hannah H @.***> wrote:

Thanks @kelynch https://github.com/kelynch! These are PPPL submissions, so let's check with Chun about how these would fit into Datacite.

@astrochun https://github.com/astrochun, We are examining how to transcribe the funder information in these records to Datacite. We are currently assuming to use the following properties for Funding Reference https://support.datacite.org/docs/datacite-metadata-schema-v44-recommended-and-optional-properties#19-fundingreference. (note: We will eventually have all of Datacite, but this is what we anticipate to start with.):

  • Funder Name
  • Award Number
  • Award URI

Do you see the information in your currently published records fitting into these fields? Please let us know if you see a need (in the near future vs waiting a bit for the full Datacite schema to be properly added) for additional or different fields for the properties under Funding Reference. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pulibrary/RDOS_Publishing/issues/7#issuecomment-1268772948, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE25ORQDQ23EXJPCGQREFFTWBXAI3ANCNFSM6AAAAAAQROTYHQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

astrochun commented 2 years ago

@kelynch and others Please let me know if you have further comment on this. Otherwise I'm going to start a ticket with the following information:

Funder information Metadata:

  • [ ] Use the following Datacite properties: Funder Name, Award Number, Award URI
  • [ ] These properties are packaged/groupd together
  • [ ] These properties are all optional, including within the grouping (no dependencies)
  • [ ] The funder grouping may be repeated as necessary, so depositors can list all funders

This looks good. Can we have default funding metadata for PPPL collections as a separate issue?

hhkitsune commented 2 years ago

@astrochun Please provide an example or list of properties for what you would like as a default for PPPL. That will help us to know exactly what you want the outcome to be. We will try to accommodate this request and will let you know if there are any barriers to doing so.

Thanks for providing the API examples. It looks like OSTI has probably used (11) AlternateIdentifier to record the DOE contract number. Although please correct me if I'm wrong.

For example: Using the first example. The contract number is: AC02-09CH11466 and is highlighted in green in the image below. (note: I'm unable to show the whole record in the image.) Although the API is rendering the property as "identifier," I suspect it's using (11) Alternate Identifier because that would follow the order of the properties. Additionally, the (1) Identifier property seems reserved for the DOI only.

Screen Shot 2022-10-11 at 9 50 11 AM

We do intend to have the (11) Alternate Identifier property available to record the ARK for each dataset, which will be absolutely necessary for the legacy records in DataSpace. This example may show that we need to allow more than one Alternate Identifier for PPPL. Please let me know if that sounds right to you.

@kelynch and team, do you have additional thoughts on this as well?

astrochun commented 2 years ago

@hhkitsune: Funder: U.S. Department of Energy Award Number: DE-AC02-09CH11466 There's no Award DOI/Link (for now).

kelynch commented 2 years ago

Related ticket in PDC Describe: https://github.com/pulibrary/pdc_describe/issues/331