See also the previous discussion of this issue in Jira: https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/DS-3472
Regards, ~~helix84 Compulsory reading: DSpace Mailing List Etiquette https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:42 PM Jere Odell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to ping Mark Wood's questions on this thread one more time ... > Mark and I use very different language for describing what we want to do ... > as a repository manager I want to: > > 1. automatically register DOIs (the manually process is tedious) > 2. store those DOIs in metadata fields that are meaningful to both machines > and to people (but, yes, machines are probably more important, in this case) > 3. do the above without modifying dspace such that future upgrades are a pain > in the neck. > > I agree with the few repository managers that responded that DOIs are best > stored in dc.identifier.doi ... and that external DOIs (those that we do not > register) should be stored in another field (version.isrelationof, for > example) ... but this is the human readable solution. I assume that those > that responded with this arrangement are registering DOIs manually or are at > the very least not using dspace to make the registration. > > It makes sense to me (sort of) as Mark says: "A system which creates > identifiers for its own purposes must know which identifiers it controls." > ... which means for now, dspace should store these in dc.identifier.uri. But > ... > > Can anyone confirm that we are not creating downstream headaches for systems > that seek to make sense of the multiple values stored in dc.identifier.uri? > Or ... as Mark says: > > "What is the appropriate, standardized or generally accepted mapping of "DOI > for this version of a resource" for interchange among heterogeneous systems?" > > AND > > "[N]on-brittle external systems will [parse the different types of > identifiers] anyway to protect themselves from unknown practices at sites > that they harvest. Do we know of any systems which do not?" > > Any thoughts on these questions? > > Jere Odell > IUPUI > > > > > > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Wood wrote: >> >> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 11:59:56 AM UTC-4, Jere Odell wrote: >>> >>> I think there's mismatch between how librarians think metadata should be >>> applied and how DSpace can auto-register (DataCite) DOIs. If Mark and >>> Claudia are correct, DSpace generates DOIs in dc.identifier.uri and >>> [cannot/is not currently able to] register DOIs from other Dublin Core >>> fields ... such as dc.identifier.doi. >>> >>> If I understand correctly, DSpace was designed to issue one persistent >>> identifier ... the handle. DOIs were a more recent request and, for now, if >>> we want to auto-generate DOIs we have to store them in dc.identifier.uri. >>> Is that correct? >>> >>> If so, that puts those of us that want to assign DOIs to our DSpace records >>> in a difficult spot ... we must choose between a) manual methods of >>> registering the DOI or b) rely on a less-than-optimal metadata practice. >>> >>> Am I missing something? >>> >> >> >> Perhaps it is I who is missing something. How, specifically, is this >> less-than-optimal practice? Some points to consider: >> >> o There actually is no such field as identifier.uri in Qualified Dublin >> Core. So what would an aggregator do with it? It has no meaning outside of >> DSpace. It should be mapped to something standardized, when exposed to >> harvesters. Screen-scraping harvesters should know they are on shaky ground >> and carefully examine the values that they find. >> >> o Resolvable URLs for DOIs and for general Handles use distinct authorities >> (hdl.handle.net vs. dx.doi.org). They are easily distinguished by humans >> and by machines. >> >> o If a raw Handle has the prefix "10." then it is a DOI, otherwise it is >> not. >> >> o How a repository stores a metadata value, and how it presents it, are >> separate questions. What is the appropriate, standardized or generally >> accepted mapping of "DOI for this version of a resource" for interchange >> among heterogeneous systems? >> >> o A system which creates identifiers for its own purposes must know which >> identifiers it controls. Others must know which identifiers they do not >> control. I presume that this is why the DOI identifier providers use one >> field and the stock submission form uses another. >> >> I would have preferred that different types of identifiers were stored >> separately, so we don't have to parse them to know what they are. But that >> isn't difficult, and non-brittle external systems will do that anyway to >> protect themselves from unknown practices at sites that they harvest. Do we >> know of any systems which do not? > > -- > All messages to this mailing list should adhere to the DuraSpace Code of > Conduct: https://duraspace.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "DSpace Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dspace-community. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All messages to this mailing list should adhere to the DuraSpace Code of Conduct: https://duraspace.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSpace Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/dspace-community. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
