persistent identification: relevant content on this site

ORCID Outreach Event at CERN

Ben O'Steen — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:23:00 +0000

Program

10:00 Welcome and what’s new – Howard Ratner, ORCID Chair (Slides [PPTX 2.55Mb])

Talk discussed:

Key quote “ORCID will work to support the creation of a permanent, clear and unambiguous record of scholarly communication by enabling reliable attribution of authors and contributors”

Re-statement of the 10 ORCID principles

Various demographics and participant statistics

Illustration of how the Trusted Partners can give more weight to the assertions made in a profile by a researcher by ‘agreeing’ (same_as):

An overview of other researcher ID initiatives and some bullet points on why they feel ORCID is different:

Only not-for-profit contributor identifier initiative dedicated to an open and global service focused on scholarly communication

ORCID is backed by a non-profit organization with over 250 participants behind it

ORCID is backed by many different stakeholders

Publishers are an important ORCID stakeholder but are just one part

ORCID is serious about building an open system

ORCID is the only researcher identifier that is not limited to discipline, institution or geographic area

ORCID is the one to bridge them all by registering the identifiers of all other relevant standalone services (silos big and small)

10:30 What ORCID already does and will do next – Brian Wilson and Geoff Bilder for the Technical Working Group (Slides [PPTX 3.8Mb])

Talk covered:

Development approach, timeline and progress overview

Discussion of the form of ORCIDs as URLs

Overview of what the Query API will provide (non-technical)

Details of the VIVO/ORCID collaboration and code resulting from that.

11:00 Open Q&A on the above

11:30 Cool, but who’s going to pay for that – Craig Van Dyck and Ed Pentz for the Business Working Group (Slides [PPTX 1.19Mb])

Talk covered:

Details of the financial models and projections for the ORCID project

Expected cost to institutions, publishers and funders

$2.75 million required as investment capital (to be paid back after the project breaks even)

13:30 ORCID and me: synergies – Each followed by animated discussion with the audience

ORCID and researchers – Cameron Neylon, STFC

Cameron’s key points were:

Without giving researchers total control over their data and their profile, the system will fail. This includes the power to not list works and co-authorship that the researcher does not want to show.

The most authoritative information you have about a researcher, WILL be from the researcher. Not the institution, not the publisher, but the researcher. It is up to them to specify what is ‘true’ or not.

Researchers wanted three things:

Online profiles that could be used to generate CVs (as maintenance-free as possible) – “It should just know about what articles I publish”

Tracking and aggregation of non-standard outputs in repositories (eg Data, software). This also relates to an identifier being used as a marker that I can use to say “This is a scholarly output for me” even on non-traditional outputs (eg blog posts)

And this is the key. Automating and simplifying grant submissions systems but critically manuscript submission systems. That got clearly the most votes, is probably actually the most tractable and offers the most opportunity for immediate traction with researchers.

ORCID and data – Jan Brase, DataCite (Slides [PPT 0.5Mb])

Provided an overview of DataCite and why it exists (no current convention for citing datasets, attributing impact to them or linking them to the articles which use them)

“DataCite is part of ORCID as ORCID is a community, DataCite is about linking all types of scientific content together, and author identification is one of the key issues”

DataCite search interface: http://search.datacite.org/ui

An example PANGAEA dataset (NB not the one used in presentation unfortunately): http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.733100

ORCID and funding agencies – Carlos Morais-Pires, European Commission (Slides [PDF])

Provided the EU context for FP8, and where ORCID and related efforts may fit within the overall strategy, including overarching figures and funding information.

No questions were raised immediately following this talk, but it did give a very good context to the levels of money that the EU is pushing into this area.

ORCID and your university library – Consol Garcia, Biblioteca del Campus del Baix Llobregat (a Prezi which I cannot find online, may be private)

Provided a good illustration of why the ‘first name, last name’ paradigm falls flat for many cultures and languages.

Asked many questions about what ORCID may do to help libraries but also how it could fit within library practices as they currently stand.

[Ben: Fundamentally, it raised more issues about current library practices and its shortfalls than what a global id for researchers could do]

ORCID and your repository – Najko Jahn, Universität Bielefeld

The presentation gave an overview as to the work they had been doing for the past year or more on their repository. They had already begun to tackle the author disambiguation problem, assigning IDs to authors and so on. Librarians suggest which works to attribute to researchers, and the researchers were able to simply confirm or deny that the work was authored by them. They had done so for approximately 300 of their researchers.

The key question he posed at the end was “What would adopting ORCID do for my repository?” which is a perfectly valid question, given the work they had already undertaken to disambiguate. The discussion was slow, but eventually focussed on the difference in scope – their researcher IDs were locally valid without a widely understood API to query about them, and an international ID system would have a global scope, with effort being made so that the API is as simple but useful as possible.

ORCID and your journal – Brian Hole – Ubiquity Press

Talked about how ORCID may work with a small, independent publisher and what made them different from others (publishing by researchers, for researchers)

ORCID Executive Update (Sept 11)

Ben O'Steen — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:50:00 +0000

ORCID in a nutshell (current strategy):

ORCID is a registry of profiles for people involved in research – a profile can be created by the person themselves (self-registry) or by what is termed a Trusted Partner, such as a University or Publisher.
The people using the system decide who is and is not a researcher, not the system itself.
A self-registered profile, for “John Smith” for example, can state that it is the same ‘John Smith’ in a profile created by a Trusted Partner and vice-versa. (akin to the semantic web’s “sameAs”)
Profiles which are linked like this in both directions (researcher to trusted partner and back again) are trusted more than a profile without such verifying claims.
Profile data can have varying levels of privacy: fields can be made public (anyone can see the data), protected (only those that a researcher authorises can see the data) or private (only the researcher can see it). It is expected that when profiles are linked in the above manner, the researcher’s privacy settings will cover the data submitted by the other parties too (but this mechanism is by no means confirmed or implemented yet.)
A researcher will be able to authorise other parties to access their protected data using a scheme called OAuth. This is a simple process for the user, and requires little to be remembered on their part. An example Twitter OAuth authorisation can be seen in the first 30 seconds of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrbmUbF0IE - blink and you’ll miss it.
The main selling point for the system at this time is that it is attempting to save a researcher’s time spent filling in publisher and funder forms for article and bid submissions by having the pertinent details automatically drawn from their ORCID profile (once the publisher/funder’s system has been authorised via the aforementioned OAuth)
The later selling point, when a tipping point of signed up users is reached, is expected to be for the universities, funders and publishers. The ability to draw up an REF return or to see which publications have been made as a result of which project funding is an expected feature.
It is expected that usable ORCIDs will be assigned from Q2 2012

Money:

(much of the following is taken from Ed Pentz’s powerpoint presentation: http://orcid.org/sites/default/files/bwgsep11.pptx WARNING: new Powerpoint required to view.)

Current projections suggest that the ORCID system will require operating costs of around $2.1 million a year for the next few years.
The organisation has approximately 6 months left of funding capital left to work with and is on a funding drive at this moment.
It is looking to follow in other CrossRef project’s footsteps by asking publishers and the like for loans – it projects that it will reach the break-even point in 5 to 6 years.
No researcher is going to pay for access to the service to create and use a profile and its ID.
The Trusted Partners are expected to pay – what the value-added services might be for these parties are still in discussion.
- The 5 to 6 years break-even point is based on what seems to be a conservative uptake by these parties – however, the system still needs to be sold to them! The following figures are extremely preliminary (tiering is based on number of people/size of organisation):

[Ben: Just repeating - these figures are pre- pre- pre-alpha and subject to change at the drop of a hat. In fact, I'd bet that they already have]

Things yet to be dealt with (my opinion):

Whilst no-one has stated a problem with ORCID’s software being Open Source, it has yet to be released as an Open Source Project. The code base that they are working on, IP belonging to Thomson-Reuters, has been scrubbed of any Thomson-Reuters specific code and they (T-R) have agree that it is suitable to be placed under an OSI licence. It just hasn’t been done yet.
The ORCID software release was planned to be just a deployable .war file – without source code. This obviously is not acceptable if the O in ORCID is to remain to stand for Open (in spirit if not pedantically.)
How privacy is to be handled with multiple parties asserting various pieces of information is not yet decided or agreed upon. This type of functionality is quite a deal-breaker for many academics.
How malicious or false claims are going to be dealt with, at a policy level, has not been clear. What level of recourse will an individual have against false claims made (mistakenly) by a trusted partner and vice-versa? Researchers making multiple accounts? Profiles made by bored teenagers for ‘fun’?
There is still a short-term gap of investment funding required of $2.75 million dollars – it remains to be seen what occurs if the code is still not made open source by the end of six months if no other sources of capital is found.
Whilst other identifier schemes can be easily included within an ORCID profile, it is not clear if – at an organisational level – if they would be happy if another organisation used the ORCID code to set up another ‘ORCID’ system. Due to the timeline of when ORCID might go live (Q2 2012), the urgency with which other organisations require them might force other systems to be put into place much earlier. For example, as Andrew Treloar jokingly quoted on the ORCID outreach event’s live chat: “If you guys have an ORC-ID, then I want an ELF-ID” – could the next ORCID-free six months force some funders to take matters into their own hands?
ORCID exit-strategies – both for the organisation and for individual profiles. What happens when the money runs out? What happens to the data? If someone wanted ‘out’, is there a way for them to remove all their data and take it with them? (in a similar vein to http://www.dataliberation.org/)
The authorisation system relies on OAuth (which is no bad thing) but I don’t think that the time required for existing organisation to adopt this has been adequately estimated. ORCIDs use on other systems to save time and effort filling in forms is a crucial part of the ‘sales pitch’ to academics – this hasn’t gotten the visible focus I would’ve expected.

ORCID – a taster of the API

Ben O'Steen — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:09:00 +0000

As the official draft API (googledoc) is both in flux and read-protected so that only those invited can see it, I am unable to give you a complete view of how things are shaping up.

However, I can relay a number of key points that everyone involved is concerned about:

It must have sensible (some may say RESTful) URLs
Human and machine-readable data is a must via
- Content-negotiation,
- and optionally, “suffix” negotiation (adding a “.xml” or “/xml”) for convenience.
OAuth is the current plan to share trust, allowing users the greatest control over what and who has access to their live profile data.
Profile creation/editing “By Proxy” is important, but shouldn’t take any control of the researcher’s basic profile information from the researcher themselves.

Some code!

Gudmundur A. Thorisson (University of Leicester and a member of the ORCID Technical Advisory Group) has put together an emulation of certain portions of the ORCID API, including some of the OAuth parts:

https://github.com/gthorisson/orcid-sandbox

Get the code from github and making sure you already have Rails/Ruby installed:

$ cd orcid-sandbox $ bundle install $ bundle exec rake db:migrate $ bundle exec rake db:setup $ rails server -p 3001 -d

(you may need “$ scripts/rails server -p 3001 -d)

Once you have the code up and running, you should be able to log in, make accounts and so on.

# OAuth-protected access to profile
[mummi@cambozola-2]curl  http://localhost:3001/profile -H "Accept: text/xml"  -I
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
X-Ua-Compatible: IE=Edge
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:20:50 GMT
Server: WEBrick/1.3.1 (Ruby/1.8.7/2009-06-12)
X-Runtime: 0.087887
Content-Length: 0
Cache-Control: no-cache

# Public access to profile
[mummi@cambozola-2]curl  http://localhost:3001/cid/0723-1814-6587-5983 -H "Accept: text/xml" -I
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
X-Ua-Compatible: IE=Edge
Etag: "390c3560fce0064d65dd1373799f13d0"
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: application/xml; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:20:49 GMT
Server: WEBrick/1.3.1 (Ruby/1.8.7/2009-06-12)
X-Runtime: 0.035443
Content-Length: 0
Cache-Control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate

# Sample response (from Mike's XML examples)
[mummi@cambozola-2]curl  http://localhost:3001/cid/0723-1814-6587-5983 -H "Accept: text/xml"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<orcid-bio-response xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.orcid.org/ns/orcid_bio_response_1.0.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.orcid.org/ns/bio_response"
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <response_version>1.0</response_version>
    <response_summary>
        <submission-date>09-10-2012 15:50:01</submission-date>
        <completion-date>09-10-2012 15:50:07</completion-date>
        <total-researchers-found>1</total-researchers-found>
        <!-- error message, if applicable -->
        <!-- unable to connect to ORCID, no matching researchers etc -->
        <error-desc>No researcher found for this institution.</error-desc>
    </response_summary>
    <profileList>
        <researcher-profile>
            <!--  ORCID elements will be present for every researcher found -->
            <orcid>XXXXXXXXXXXXXX</orcid>
            <!-- In short, researcher has claimed the profile if confirmed=true-->
            <confirmed>true</confirmed>
            <firstName>Josiah</firstName>
            <lastName>Carberry</lastName>
            <middleName>Stinkney</middleName>
            <other-names>
                <other-name>J. Carberry</other-name>
                <other-name>J. S. Carberry</other-name>
            </other-names>
            <researcher-urls>
                <url>http://library.brown.edu/about/hay/carberry.php</url>
                <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_S._Carberry</url>
                <url>http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=C0070</url>
            </researcher-urls>
            <institution>
                <name>Brown University</name>
                <address>
                        <addressLine1>38 Brown Street / Box 1920</addressLine1>
                        <city>Providence</city>
                        <state-or-province>Rhode Island</state-or-province>
                        <country>United States</country>
                        <postalcode>02912</postalcode>
                    </address>
                <departmentName>Psychoceramics</departmentName>
                <departmentName>High Energy Metaphysics</departmentName>
                <role>Researcher (Academic)</role>
                <start-date>1929</start-date>
            </institution>
            <bulk-institution>Brown University</bulk-institution>
            <sponsor>Brown University Library</sponsor>
            <affiliate-institution>
                <name> Wesleyan University</name>
                <address>
                        <addressLine1>Wesleyan University</addressLine1>
                        <addressLine2>Czech-Republic</addressLine2>
                        <city>Middletown</city>
                        <state-or-province>Connecticut</state-or-province>
                        <country>United States</country>
                        <postalcode>06459</postalcode>
                    </address>
                <departmentName>Bilocation</departmentName>
                <role>Researcher (Academic)</role>
                <start-date>1930</start-date>
            </affiliate-institution>
        </researcher-profile>
    </profileList>
</orcid-bio-response>

ORCID: some questions and answers

Ben O'Steen — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:38:00 +0000

The following is from an email exchange with Nicky Ferguson. These are my answers to the questions
he posed, and as such shouldn’t be considered the opinion of the ORCID project itself. They are the
answers I believe are correct, based on the meetings and discussions I have been part of on the
technical advisory group.

If any other member of the advisory group can correct any inaccuracies in the comments, I’d be
most appreciative.

> 1. ISNI, ORCID, VIAF etc … will they each or should they be a
> subset of UUID, in a world where there is a need for identifiers for
> all sorts of things from lab notebooks to datasets to institutions, as
> well as researchers?

ORCID and VIAF have both plumped for a ‘short’ number and a verbal
prefix (eg VIAF ID: 747462). It is intended (eventually) that the profile
corresponding to a given ORCID should be able to be found from
an ORCID site, and not necessarily the ORCID site.

You can currently construct URLs for both
where that ID number is used as a suffix to do a lookup on that
researcher/author/etc, with effort and consideration being made so
that the URL prefix will not change in the near future. It is naive to
think that any URL prefix that will never, ever change but keeping the
URL usable for as long as humanly possible is given serious thought.

With UUIDs, you will have to do something identical as there is no DNS
lookup *system* for them but a handful of individual sites that record
links as it suits them. Due to the UUID range being so large, the key
advantage of the scheme is that given a suitably random manner to
generate them, collisions between UUIDs made on separate systems are
incredibly rare. I’m not sure that anyone has recorded a collision
yet, (disregarding those due to poorly configured entropy pools on
virtual machines) This means that it is perfectly reasonable to
generate UUIDs for things completely independently of any central
organising body, and so makes them very cheap and long-lasting.

People do not like them however – subjectively – they do not like them
as part of visible URLs, they do not like them as identifiers to
wield, and they do not like identifiers for themselves that they
cannot remember by rote.

> 2. Who decides who is a researcher? In the UK some universities call
> all their members of staff ”teacher/researchers”, others make a clear
> distinction. What about schoolchildren who jointly author a paper?
> What about researchers in charities or industry who may never author a
> paper. What about peer-reviewers and research “users”?

ORCID currently is an “Allow then Deny Later” system. The main
‘ORCID’ site will be a self-signup website (with an initially limited
ability for proxies to sign up and create and amend profiles for others)
and the ‘researcher-iness’ of profiles will not be policed as there is no need to,
unless the profile claims something untruthful.

The core of the system is based on trust – if a person claims an institutional affiliation,
that will be marked as untrusted until that institution
verifies this. If an institution or research group doesn’t verify the
data, care is being taken that this is displayed as clearly as
possible.

There is no need to police people, only to police the claims they make
about themselves and the works they claim to have a hand in
publishing.

>
> 3. Even institutions which pride themselves on their research may
> only have 20-30% of their staff who are researchers, how do you sell a
> business case to them that they should alter their systems to
> accommodate an identifier for only a minority of the staff on their
> finance/HR/security systems?

Again, the ORCID system (and to an extent the VIAF system) is geared
to help the researcher – at a basic level, keeping a note of the ID
which a researcher has is all that is required to begin to benefit
from it. I think that due to the well understood pace at which change
occurs within the administrative systems of an institution, the first
meeting at which a business case for change might need to be presented
will occur many, many months after the researchers have adopted the
system for themselves as just part of the academic toolset. And if the
researchers do not find it useful, then it will disappear like so many
of the previous ID systems.

> 4. Similar question about researchers themselves – they have been
> disappointingly reluctant to deposit their papers in repositories and
> to use grant numbers in their publications, even when “mandated” – who
> will design the compelling interfaces which will encourage them to use
> ORCID … in the academic community we don’t have a great track record
> at designing compelling interfaces?

It is not an academic community that is designing the interface for
one – it has already been outsourced to a small team of local
designers and developers that Crossref have had good working
relationships with so there is hope there. The key will be
whether or not the system will save time for the researcher and make
certain tasks that they already do easier.

The API for the ORCID
service is very much the focus at the moment and certain use-cases
have been thought through, such as encouraging publishers and journal
submission processes to use the ID system, rather than get the
researcher (or PA/postgrad by proxy) to fill in all their information
again, as well as bootstrapping the ORCID database with information
already within existing bibliographic databases so that many profiles
need only be claimed and verified, rather than generated anew.

I do not mean to knock the institutional repository scene unduly
(having been an institutional repo person myself) but I have yet to see
more than a few repositories strive to make the researcher’s
lives easier and better. It is worth noting that those repositories
are the one’s that are thriving.

>
> 5. What role would a national registry need to play to map ORCID (or
> a.n.other identifier) with key information? and finally …

In short, include something semantically similar to ‘rdf:seeAlso’
within the database/triplestore/profile for the national registry’s
version of the same person. Many of the codebase changes occurring at
this time are so that the informational claims within other
whitelisted registries can be automatically shown and interpreted
within the ORCID store, moving towards a multi-trust system.

>
> 6. I understand that the idea is that the researchers themselves
> would control the registration and updating processes – but
> institutions, funders and government agencies will surely want to
> maintain their own registries/database using the ID … yes? Is the
> mechanism for change control of personal information thought out?
>

As mentioned above, the changes occurring and being implemented are to
effect a solid multi-trust control system, which will allow for the
kind of distributed profiles you mention to be accepted. However, the
systems have to provide data such that a machine can use it, and that
may be the sticking point for a few of these systems.

Confidence, and the business of persistent identification

Paul Walk — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:48:10 +0000

The persistent identification of resources is a foundational element of the JISC Information Environment. There are several schemes and technologies available to support this, with one of the most prominently used in the JISC IE being the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Built on the Handle technology, the DOI, under the stewardship of the not-for-profit International DOI Foundation (IDF), adds the important element of collective commitment and management, based on straightforward business interests. DOIs are allocated and managed through Registration Agencies (RAs).

DOI has become somewhat synonymous with scholarly publishing, with most people working in the JISC IE having encountered them in citations for papers in online journals and repositories. However, while publishers continue to play an important role in minting and using DOIs, the use of DOIs to persistently identify datasets produced in research is growing in significance. Last year saw the creation of a new RA - DataCite, which deals with this relatively new and growing area.

There has been much debate over the years about the persistent identification of resources - especially at the technical level. Yet all technical solutions are bound, eventually, to come up against the issue of the persistence, or lack thereof, of organisations of people. In the JISC IE space we can see that publishers come and go, and that journal titles, for example, merge or change ownership from time to time. Universities, seen by many as very persistent organisations (a pre-conception which might, sadly, be tested in the next few years) do, nonetheless, merge and change.

The creation of a body which has as its primary goal the management of the persistence of identifiers - essentially the role of the Registration Agency in DOI - is an approach to addressing this lack of permanence. Within the 'ecosystem' of the RAs, each participant has a vested interest not only in maintaing their own identifiers, but in ensuring that the system as a whole continues to function well. From this point of view, it is in the interests of all participants that the commitment from others is strong which means that the addition of new RAs, such as DataCite, can only be a good thing.

Over the last year or so, IDF has been working with MovieLabs as part of a project to establish the not-for-profit Entertainment Identifier Registry (EIDR). This initiative includes the establishment of a new Registration Agency for DOIs for all digital resources created for TV and film by a consortium of many of the major producers in the entertainment industry. EIDR is actively seeking more participants, and offers a variety of types of membership.

While the engagement of this new industry may not be directly relevant to many people working in the scope of the JISC IE, the confidence and investment which this industry has placed in the DOI system is significant. This development increases the viability of DOI in general and, as such, should make it a more attractive prospect to those working in the JISC IE and in HE in the UK generally.

Essentially, confidence is an important aspect of persistence - and significant buy-in to DOI from such different sectors, commercial and public, should increase confidence in this solution.

A whitepaper about EIDR is available on request.

An introduction to DOI in a higher education context (set of presentation slides)