You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be nice to provide a standardized way to provide ORCIDs for fields that mention people, so that they can be referred to in a non-ambiguous way.
We could add some syntax to the authors field to allow people to specify this extra information, e.g.: Gijsbers, Pieter (ORCID:0000-0001-7346-8075), and the website could render the name as a hyperlink to the orcid.org page. The dataset upload endpoints would need to accommodate a user-friendly way to add this information, without the user needing to have knowledge of how to format the field.
Alternatively, we could add additional fields. Perhaps in our database we add a Person table what gives each person a unique identifier and stores the name and ORCID (or multiple tables if we want to support other references). This also makes it easier to group datasets by author. However, this does introduce additional bookkeeping.
Personally, the first method seems OK to me, as we can in a non-destructive manner still progress to other schemes later. WDYT?
This topic was created after a discussion with @sebffischer
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
It would be nice to provide a standardized way to provide ORCIDs for fields that mention people, so that they can be referred to in a non-ambiguous way.
We could add some syntax to the authors field to allow people to specify this extra information, e.g.:
Gijsbers, Pieter (ORCID:0000-0001-7346-8075)
, and the website could render the name as a hyperlink to the orcid.org page. The dataset upload endpoints would need to accommodate a user-friendly way to add this information, without the user needing to have knowledge of how to format the field.Alternatively, we could add additional fields. Perhaps in our database we add a
Person
table what gives each person a unique identifier and stores the name andORCID
(or multiple tables if we want to support other references). This also makes it easier to group datasets by author. However, this does introduce additional bookkeeping.Personally, the first method seems OK to me, as we can in a non-destructive manner still progress to other schemes later. WDYT?
This topic was created after a discussion with @sebffischer
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions