Domain repositories build strong communities of people and organizations that contribute data, expertise and scientific results. These communities thrive on active connections between data, papers, people, and organizations. Multiple contributions and real-world connections make domain repositories great places for adoption of identifiers and virtual connections that build the PID graph.
Read MoreWe are thrilled to announce that Metadata Game Changers is partnering with Openscapes, housed at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis on a new NASA-funded, three year project! The full announcement is posted to the Openscapes website here: https://www.openscapes.org/blog/2021/03/10/nasa-announcement/
Read MoreMeasuring metadata completeness is a great way to identify good examples and low-hanging fruit for improvement. A Pidapalloza talk from last week described results from a recent assessment of 144 repositories from the TIB DataCite Consortium with respect to recommendations for FAIR metadata. Overall, the seven mandatory DataCite fields dominate these repositories, but several great examples that go beyond the mandatory were identified.
Read MoreIn honor of PIDapalooza 2021 and 25 hours of Persistent Identifier discussion happening today, we thought a post celebrating the power of PIDs for increasing connectivity and how to measure that connectivity is in order. Let’s party on 🥳
Read MoreIt has been ten years since the release of the first DataCite metadata schema. Many improvements since then provide a roadmap for community evolution toward making DataCite metadata more FAIR.
Read MoreThe road to complete and consistent metadata can be long and arduous – digging through piles of metadata and other kinds of data to find small gems of information that can be added to metadata records, contacting recalcitrant researchers to fill in blanks, slowly building content across a collection… Does it really need to be that hard?
Read MoreLooking for New Year’s metadata resolutions? How about: Stop using sentences that include the words “minimum metadata” without specifying a use case.
Read MoreDataCite subject metadata can play an important role in dataset classification and discovery, but these elements are uncommon in the repository and need some improvements. Establishing metrics for completeness and quality is an important first step in the improvement process.
Read MoreNon-unique organizations and acronyms can cause problems in ROR searches. Use supporting information if you have it to get better results. If not, beware of theses gotchas.
Read MoreLet’s recognize leaders in the adoption of organizational identifiers in DataCite metadata. They are making tracks for us to follow!
Read MoreAdopting organizational identifiers (RORs) in existing metadata may not be as hard as we think for DataCite members that only have a few affiliations in their metadata. However, even in these cases, some challenges remain.
Read MoreMany groups are interested in augmenting their affiliation metadata with RORs and it seems that a list of organization names is the right input to that process... Alas, we know that affiliations are a swamp filled with gotcha's. It turns out that an unexpected (really?) number of organization names resolve to multiple RORs. Actually, almost 800 of them!
Read MoreClear and specific community recommendations for FAIR metadata in multiple dialects are rare and necessary for measuring progress towards evaluating and improving metadata in many repositories. We propose an initial set of concepts and an evaluation of the DataCite metadata collection for essential metadata elements that support Findability.
Read MoreThe DataCite metadata model includes rich information about over 18 million items with DOIs. The schema includes at least four elements that describe organizations: publisher, creator, contributor, and fundingReference. Each of these elements has interesting characteristics. Let’s explore them!
Read MoreI recently introduced a simple visualization of data from the CrossRef Participation Reports that provides quantitative insight into how completeness of CrossRef metadata collections with respect to eleven key metadata elements has changed between the backfile and the current record collections. An important goal of that work is to identify members with relatively complete metadata that can provide examples for helping other members understand the benefits of improved metadata. Before we explore and compare individual cases, it is interesting to establish the big picture as a background that we can keep in mind as we look at specifics.
Read MoreI recently introduced a simple metric for measuring metadata collection completeness with respect to elements in the CrossRef Participation Reports. The suggestion of this metric immediately led to speculation about relationships between collection size and completeness. Small collections include fewer records – are they more likely to be complete? Publishers with large collections have more resources – do they have more complete metadata? Are smaller publishers more agile - can they change more?
Read MoreAll scientific communities have been linking research together for many years using references to related work in articles. Recently these communities are exploring options for linking to datasets and software. As part of this effort, the CodeMeta Project recently proposed a vocabulary for metadata for code based on schema.org.
Read MoreThe CrossRef Participation Reports provide a wealth of information about completeness of CrossRef metadata collections and, equally interesting, comparisons between two time periods (backfile and current). These comparisons provide unique opportunities to examine metadata evolution through time. This blog introduces a tool that can be used to visualize this evolution.
Read MoreI have worked in scientific data management for many years and enjoy working with organizations and communities that share data and knowledge. I am fluent in metadata standards and dialects used in scientific data management and publishing.
We are constantly working to help you change your metadata game. If you have any questions, suggestions, or crazy ideas, please send contact us or connect with us through the details below.
Ted Habermann
ted@metadatagamechangers.com
ORCID | LinkedIn | Twitter
Erin Robinson
erin@metadatagamechangers.com
ORCID | LinkedIn | Twitter
or use this form.
Search the site:
Powered by Squarespace.
