Differences

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

--- wiki:m1.3 [2023/12/20 16:55] – [References] esoeding
+++ wiki:m1.3 [2025/05/28 15:08] (current) – [3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation] esoeding
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 =====Contributors=====
-[[https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-9107|Martin Abbrent ORCID: 0000-0003-1252-9107]] [[https://ror.org/000h6jb29|UFZ]], [[https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4467-642X|Emanuel Söding ORCID: 0000-0002-4467-642X]] [[https://ror.org/02h2x0161|GEOMAR]]
+[[https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-9107|Martin Abbrent ORCID: 0000-0003-1252-9107]] [[https://ror.org/000h6jb29|UFZ]],
+[[https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4467-642X|Emanuel Söding ORCID: 0000-0002-4467-642X]] [[https://ror.org/02h2x0161|GEOMAR]] (lead)
 =====Content=====
@@ Line 66: / Line 68: @@
 =====1. Explanation of the Background and Benefits of the Recommendation=====
+The Helmholtz Association is determined to make their data available
+according to the FAIR principles, thus making it findable, accessible,
+interoperable and reusable. In order to achieve interoperability of
+datasets among various data infrastructures (DIS) within the Helmholtz
+Association, a common and agreed procedure to **refer to people** within
+and across the DIS is needed.
+In order to be able to uniquely and sustainably identify both
+researchers and employees in data infrastructures and repositories in
+the Helmholtz Association, the respective person should always be
+referenced with a persistent identifier (PID) (see recommendation M0).
+For the Helmholtz Association we recommend to use ORCID to refer to
+people and contributors to resources in data infrastructures and
+repositories of the Helmholtz Association wherever possible (see
+recommendation M1.0).
+To be able to implement this measure, several activities need to be
+conducted by different stakeholder groups. This recommendation M1.3.
+calls for activity of the data stewards, repository maintainers and
+developers.
 =====2. Possible alternative solutions=====
 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=====
+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.
+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.
 =====4. The Recommendation=====