HMC Community Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
wiki:m4.0

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
wiki:m4.0 [2025/05/20 13:42] – [2. Possible alternative solutions] esoedingwiki: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 ^ ^                         ^ mandatory  ^ conditional           ^ optional ^
-^ Helmholtz FAIR Principle|            |      |          |+^ Helmholtz FAIR Principle|            |  X    |          |
  
 =====Precondition for Implementation: ===== =====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 ===== =====Related Recommendations =====
  
-Parent: 
  
-Dependent:+Parent: 0.1 
 + 
 +Dependent: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 
  
 Other: none Other: none
Line 79: Line 81:
 ====2. Possible alternative solutions==== ====2. Possible alternative solutions====
  
-1. Internal or Local Identifiers+  * Internal or Local Identifiers
  
-    What: Lab- or institution-specific sample IDs. +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.+
  
-2. Accession Numbers in Domain Repositories +Pros: Easy to implement, tailored to local needs.
-    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.+
  
-3. Handle System / Custom DOIs +Cons: Not globally unique, not resolvable, hard to track across systems or publications.
-    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.+
  
-4. ARK (Archival Resource Key) +  * Accession Numbers in Domain Repositories 
-    What: A persistent identifier scheme designed for objects of any type. +What: Identifiers assigned by domain-specific repositories or museums (e.g., GenBank accession numbers, museum catalog numbers). 
-    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.+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?__
  
-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: 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 +  * Global uniqueness and persistence 
-    A structured, interoperable metadata schema +  * A structured, interoperable metadata schema 
-    Community governance +  * Community governance 
-    Integration with DataCite infrastructure +  * Integration with DataCite infrastructure 
-    Support for linking to related PIDs (e.g., ORCID, ROR, dataset DOIs)+  * 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. Therefore, for research workflows that require transparent, machine-readable, and citable links between samples and data, IGSN remains the most suitable and sustainable option.
Line 136: Line 147:
 ====5. Naming of communities that have already implemented the recommendation==== ====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==== ====6. Documentation of the test to validate correct implementation====
wiki/m4.0.1747748558.txt.gz · Last modified: by esoeding