Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- wiki:m1.3 [2025/05/28 13:47] – [1. Explanation of the Background and Benefits of the Recommendation] esoeding
+++ wiki:m1.3 [2025/05/28 15:08] (current) – [3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation] esoeding
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 =====3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation=====
-ORCID not present
+Implementing ORCID requires updating metadata schemas and workflows to support consistent recording and validation of ORCID iDs. Synchronizing metadata with ORCID records can be technically demanding, especially when dealing with discrepancies or outdated profiles. Infrastructures must also handle user consent, as not all researchers have ORCID iDs or keep them current. Integrating ORCID into identity and access management (IAM/AAI) systems adds complexity around authentication flows, attribute handling, and privacy policies. Finally, relying on an external service like ORCID demands ongoing technical maintenance, monitoring of API changes, and alignment with broader PID infrastructure.
-  *     In cases where an ORCID is not available for a person, we recommend the following procedure:
+When an ORCID is not available, data infrastructures should still record the person’s full name and leave the ORCID field empty or marked as pending, allowing for future updates. To support post-hoc linking, systems should enable users to add ORCIDs later, for example through a “claim your record” function. As a fallback, institutional identifiers can be used to reference the person within identity and access systems. Finally, infrastructures should implement regular quality control processes to identify missing ORCIDs and enrich metadata over time, either manually or through automated tools such as the ORCID Public API.
-      * leave the field empty [this recommendation could be improved]
-      * encourage person to register an ORCID