Required and recomeded fields in DataCite XML

[borsna]

Agree on list of required & recommended fields in DataCite XML.
Some examples could be useful.

(M): Mandatory
(R): Recommended
(O): Optional

• Identifier (M)
• Creator (M)
• Title (M)
• Publisher (M)
• PublicationYear (M)
• Subject (M)
• Contributor (O)
• Date (M)
• Language (R)
• ResourceType (M)
• AlternateIdentifier (MO)
• RelatedIdentifier (MO)
• Format (O)
• Version (O)
• Rights (R)
• Description (M)
• GeoLocation (O)
• FundingReference (O)

[DeboraArlt]

AlternateIdentifier and RelatedIdentifier are M above. What's the reason for that? Those are O and R at DataCite. Will often be missing.

[DeboraArlt]

One thing I am missing: since the idea is to gather metadata that can be for datasets publisehd elsewhere (not SND) there should be an element that allows to point to where the metadata come from.

[borsna]

@DeboraArlt good catch! these those should be O or R in our case. Changed both to O in the list and will add it to the agenda if we should have them as R or O in the next online meeting.

The Identifier field should be the way to point to the source and the harvester will add harvesting metadata about the source repository and promote the DOI from Identifier as the source for the metadata.

[DeboraArlt]

Creator: "The main researchers involved in producing the resource, in priority order (occurrences: 1-n)." - may not always be researchers that produce the resource. I see that DataCite uses this definition. EML says "The people or organizations who created this resource." To me it seems strange limiting the definition to researchers, I would suggest change to "The person(-s) involved in producing [creating?] the resource, in priority order (occurrences: 1-n)."

And is it correct that we only allow person here? or also organisation? Seems that DataCite allows both: May be a corporate/institutional or personal name.

[DeboraArlt]

Publication year: is now "The year when the data was or will be made publicly available. (occurrences: 1)" - go with other definitions and chage to "The year when the resource was ..."?

[borsna]

Creator: "The main researchers involved in producing the resource, in priority order (occurrences: 1-n)." - may not always be researchers that produce the resource. I see that DataCite uses this definition. EML says "The people or organizations who created this resource." To me it seems strange limiting the definition to researchers, I would suggest change to "The person(-s) involved in producing [creating?] the resource, in priority order (occurrences: 1-n)."

And is it correct that we only allow person here? or also organisation? Seems that DataCite allows both: May be a corporate/institutional or personal name.

True, we have a example of a creator organization so i think we should be clearer in the text. Would this be a good change?

The person(-s) and/or orginzation(-s) involved in creating the resource, in priority order (occurrences: 1-n).

Publication year: is now "The year when the data was or will be made publicly available. (occurrences: 1)" - go with other definitions and chage to "The year when the resource was ..."?

Agreed, committing the change.

[DeboraArlt]

good change, if "orginzation(-s)" is "organization(-s)" ;-)

[DeboraArlt]

RelatedIdentifier: remove the "Definition:" at the start of the definition text?

[DeboraArlt]

Description: I am confused by the definition "All additional information that does not fit in any of the other categories. May be used for technical information (occurrences: 0-n)." although it's used like this by DataCite. Description i sM, which I think is a good idea, but then just calling it "additional info tht does not fit in any other category" is pretty vague. I would prefer being clearer with what we ask for here. I would always want a short abstract for a resource. other descriptions (e.g. Methods, or TechnicalInfo) can be provided too but don't really describe the resource. and a title may be not very descriptive either.

GBIF uses abstract (for methods and other there are other field/properties): A brief overview of the resource that is being documented.
Dublin Core also uses abstract: A summary of the resource.

What about changing the definition to something like "A brief summary of the resource. May also be used for technical information. (occurrences: 0-n)"

[DeboraArlt]

GeoLocation: semantics but perhaps better as (inserting resource) "Spatial region or named place where the data of the resource was gathered or about which the data is focused", or "Spatial region or named place where the data contained in the resource was gathered or about which the data is focused"?

[borsna]

Added required property contributorType for Contributor in the example