Differences

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

--- wiki:m4.0 [2025/05/20 13:40] – [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 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====