New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use Case: Guidelines for Data DOI Versioning vs. New DOI #19

Open
cynDC42 opened this Issue Jan 26, 2015 · 0 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@cynDC42

cynDC42 commented Jan 26, 2015

Use Case Title: Guidelines for Data DOI Versioning vs. New DOI

  • Contributors: Cyndy Chandler (BCO-DMO, WHOI)
  • Category: Citing Data Use Case (but applicable for "Citing Software" as well)

Goals and Summary Description

The Biological & Chemical Oceanography Data Management office (BCO-DMO) manages data from NSF GEO Ocean Sciences (OCE) and Polar Programs (PLR) awards. The office submits datasets (and metadata) to our Institutional Repository, the WHOI Data Library and Archives (WHOAS DSpace system). The Data Library provides BCO-DMO with dataset DOIs (minted by CrossRef). In general, every data submission receives a new DOI, but I expect that in some circumstances it would be more useful to the community if a new version of the data were submitted, and the DOI record amended. In cases where the original data are unmodified, but new rows (e.g. the same measurements from additional observation events) or columns (e.g. additional measurements from the original observation events) have been appended, it might be more useful to add a new version of the data and append the DOI metadata record. It would be useful to have guidelines describing how responsible curators decide whether to version the DOI or request a new DOI and relate it to any previous ones. The example included below is for a dataset from the Fukushima nuclear incident. We fully expect these data to be amended, and issuing a new version (as opposed to a new DOI with a separate metadata record) would allow researchers to clearly follow the provenance.

Why is it important and to whom?

  • Relevant for data curators and archivists in need of these guidelines
  • Also relevant for code developers (but the criteria would likely be different, e.g. separate, but related guidelines)

Why hasn’t it been solved yet?

  • it's a question of best practices rather than technological barriers
  • it may have been solved in that there have been guidelines posted, and I'm just not aware of them

Actionable Outcomes

BCO-DMO and MBLWHOI staff would consider implementing/following the guidelines promoted by this workshop. I would also promote these guidelines in the ESIP and RDA research communities as well as IODE (international ocean data) and World Data System.

Additional Information and Links

Acknowledgements

References

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment