Closed aanastasiou closed 1 year ago
@aanastasiou This is the expected behavior. Per ROR's metadata policies (which are enforced by validation), active records may contain relationships with type Predecessor to inactive records, as this type of relationship specifically indicates that an active organization was preceded by an organization that is no longer active. Active records cannot contain relationships to inactive records with types other than Predecessor. Handling inactive organization status/relationships was discussed extensively in the initial public comment draft and final draft documents about ROR's approach to organization status changes, as well as at several community meetings last year. Since the chosen approach was just implemented in Dec, we are not currently considering changes.
@lizkrznarich Thank you for letting me know. What would be the best place to register to, to keep track with ROR and changes to the datasets?
Hi @aanastasiou! Thanks for your comments and your interest. We have several options for keeping up to date:
See also https://ror.org/community/#get-involved for social media etc.
Describe the bug
Organisation 03av75f26 that is an
active
organisation, maintains a relationship with organisation 04a7f6w43 that is aninactive
organisation and has been "re-routed" to organisation 03av75f26.To Reproduce Search release v1.20 for
https://ror.org/04a7f6w43
, it is found in line 8779394 (as the id of the inactive organisation) and line 8772661 (as a relationship of the active organisation).If only the active records are filtered, then this relationship references an organisation that "does not exist".
Expected behavior
I would expect that all
active
records describe a self-contained and consistent dataset (?)Additional context The referencing organisation lists two related organisations both with a "Predecessor" label. (Would this mean that both of these relationships (on 04av75f26) are redundant too?
EDIT: Added "additional context"