Differences

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

--- wiki:m4.0 [2025/05/20 13:39] – [1. Explanation of the Background and Benefits of the Recommendation] esoeding
+++ wiki:m4.0 [2025/05/20 14:42] (current) – [5. Naming of communities that have already implemented the recommendation] esoeding
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ^                         ^ mandatory  ^ conditional	          ^ optional ^
-^ Helmholtz FAIR Principle|            |      |          |
+^ Helmholtz FAIR Principle|            |  X    |          |
 =====Precondition for Implementation: =====
+The institution needs to be a member of Data Cite or needs to partner with a member to be able to register IGSNs.
 =====Related Recommendations =====
-Parent:
-Dependent:
+Parent: 0.1
+Dependent: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
 Other: none
@@ Line 73: / Line 75: @@
 Using IGSNs improves sample traceability, ensures reproducibility of results, and supports data integration across disciplines. It allows researchers to explicitly reference the physical basis of data analyses, which is critical for verification, reuse, and credit assignment.
-__Current Use of ...__
+__Current Use of IGSN__
 IGSNs are currently used in a range of domains, including geosciences, environmental sciences, archaeology, and biodiversity research. For example, ocean drilling samples from IODP expeditions, sediment cores, rock specimens, water samples, and even archaeological artifacts have been assigned IGSNs. These identifiers help integrate sample-based research into digital infrastructures and link physical materials to datasets and publications, thus enabling transparent and connected science.
@@ Line 79: / Line 81: @@
 ====2. Possible alternative solutions====
+  * Internal or Local Identifiers
+What: Lab- or institution-specific sample IDs.
+Pros: Easy to implement, tailored to local needs.
+Cons: Not globally unique, not resolvable, hard to track across systems or publications.
+  * Accession Numbers in Domain Repositories
+What: Identifiers assigned by domain-specific repositories or museums (e.g., GenBank accession numbers, museum catalog numbers).
+Pros: Well-integrated in their domains.
+Cons: Often not globally unique, not persistent outside their system, not interoperable across disciplines.
+  * Handle System / Custom DOIs
+What: Using general-purpose persistent identifiers like DOIs or Handles for samples.
+Pros: Technically viable; DOI infrastructure is mature.
+Cons: Lack of community consensus or metadata model for samples unless built on top of IGSN or similar; harder to ensure consistency and semantic clarity.
+  * ARK (Archival Resource Key, [[https://arks.org/]])
+What: A persistent identifier scheme designed for objects of any type.
+Pros: Flexible, openly governed, used by some institutions (e.g., museums, archives).
+Cons: Less widely adopted in science, lacks built-in metadata requirements for samples, limited interoperability in research workflows.
+__Why IGSN?__
+While alternatives exist, IGSN is currently the only PID system specifically designed to handle the complexities of referencing physical samples across scientific domains. It combines:
+  * Global uniqueness and persistence
+  * A structured, interoperable metadata schema
+  * Community governance
+  * Integration with DataCite infrastructure
+  * Support for linking to related PIDs (e.g., ORCID, ROR, dataset DOIs)
+Therefore, for research workflows that require transparent, machine-readable, and citable links between samples and data, IGSN remains the most suitable and sustainable option.
 ====3. Consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the recommendation====
@@ Line 105: / Line 147: @@
 ====5. Naming of communities that have already implemented the recommendation====
+GFZ Data Services
+Pangaea
+Hereon HCDC (?)
+Others?
 ====6. Documentation of the test to validate correct implementation====