Differences

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

--- wiki:m1.3 [2023/12/20 15:20] – [4. The Recommendation] esoeding
+++ wiki:m1.3 [2024/01/22 15:44] (current) – [3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation] esoeding
@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 see [[https://earth-and-environment.helmholtz-metadaten.de/wiki/doku.php?id=wiki:m1.0#possible_alternative_solutions|recommendation M1.0]]
 =====3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation=====
+ORCID not present
+  *     In cases where an ORCID is not available for a person, we recommend the following procedure:
+      * leave the field empty [this recommendation could be improved]
+      * encourage person to register an ORCID
 =====4. The Recommendation=====
@@ Line 79: / Line 86: @@
   - consider ORCID as an attribute in identity and access management systems (IAM), authentication and authorisation infrastructures (AAI) or community attribute services.
-Note on 2. + 3.: treating ORCIDD metadata as the primary source of truth is a conceptual decision on the issue, who is ultimately responsible for personal data. In this model we assume, that each person / contributor, identified by an ORCID is solely responsible for their own data and should only made aware of incorrect information, not forced to update it. Technically, institutions could maintain their own records of these personal data. This, however, leads to several problems: 1. the maintenance of this data is very difficult and keeping it current almost impossible; 2. by keeping personal data of people, data privacy becomes an issue, as people cannot control, what data about them is shared with others. This can be avoided by delegating the responsibility for personal information to the persons themselves, at the cost of not being in full control of that data.
+Note on 2. + 3.: treating ORCID metadata as the primary source of truth is a conceptual decision on the issue, who is ultimately responsible for personal data. In this model we assume, that each person / contributor, identified by an ORCID is solely responsible for their own data and should only made aware of incorrect information, not forced to update it. Technically, institutions could maintain their own records of these personal data. This, however, leads to several problems: 1. the maintenance of this data is very difficult and keeping it current almost impossible; 2. by keeping personal data of people, data privacy becomes an issue, as people cannot control, what data about them is shared with others. This can be avoided by delegating the responsibility for personal information to the persons themselves, at the cost of not being in full control of that data.
 Note on 4.: Identity and access management systems (IAM), authentication and authorization infrastructures (AAI) or upcoming community attribute services like defined in the [[https://aarc-project.eu/architecture/|AARC blueprint architecture]] are suitable environments for enriching user information, for example with an ORCID attribute. The mechanisms to control forwarding of private and personal user information allows the users to decide if they agree with that. As an attribute of the user objects the usage of ORCID within scientific software applications would be simplified and encouraged.
@@ Line 92: / Line 99: @@
 ====References====
-[12] ORCID Terms of use: https://info.orcid.org/terms-of-use/
+[1] ORCID Terms of use: https://info.orcid.org/terms-of-use/
 ====Relevant Community Recommendations====
 =====9. History of this document=====