Mark up lists of works with metadata
Lists of works should be marked up with metadata; unAPI, ideally, COinS at a minimum.
This will be more easily done if the "<a href="http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3266048-metadata-for-publications-should-be-entered-using-">Metadata for publications should be entered using a form _not_ free text</a>" ticket is implemented.
See <a href="http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/27247/orcid-profiles/#Comment_143596">prior discussion at the Zotero forums</a>
Great suggestion and thanks for the link to the discussion on Zotero. We’re going to have a working group take up this issue soon, and I’ll follow up with this idea once they decide on works metadata.
It is extremely disappointing to see /another/ well-reasoned suggestion for improvement declined; in this case OVER FOUR YEARS after it was raised, and especially given that you originally said "We’re going to have a working group take up this issue soon, and I’ll follow up with this idea once they decide on works metadata". [For some reason that comment, made just after the suggestion was posted, is now dated today.]
The suggestion is not about "improving the metadata in works", but about how the /existing/ metadata is marked up on the web page.
The URL in your June 2017 comment redirects to Crossref's home page, and so tells us nothing further.
Sadly, I'm aware from previous experience that it is apparently a technical impossibility for tickets such as this to be reopened once closed.
AdminORCID (Global) (Admin, ORCID) commented
We are not going to be taking this forward right now, as we are prioritizing other developments but certainly improving the metadata in works is important for us. We are currently working with Crossref on their Metadata 2020 initiative to help improve shared metadata. More info on: https://twitter.com/metadata2020
The ORCID Community Team
ORCID is getting better with the integration with other sources. But it is quite useless as long as the metadata is not structured properly.
I am quite puzzled by the logic of adding information in the "Citation" section. It is quite ridiculous and completely useless.
Please make this the highest priority on your todo list!
David Lawrence commented
Is there any progress on implementing this idea? Saying, "I'll follow up..." and then nothing for two and a half years is creating an unpleasant experience. A little more transparency would be helpful. If an idea is rejected or postponed indefinitely I would like to know. In this and similar cases, bad news is better than no news.
The works metadata working group, on which I did indeed sit, reported a while ago. Where does this proposal stand, now?
Thank you. I've volunteered to be part of that group; when might I hear back?
@ David W. Lawrence - maybe Zotero will allow you to extract records from an ORCID profile, then export them in the required format? We may need to encourage someone to write a "Translator" to do the former; I've suggested this at <http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/27247/orcid-profiles/>
David W. Lawrence commented
MODS would be very nice.
With a standard format for all metadata fields, it would be trivial to import metadata from other services. Daily, I download files in NLM PubMed XML and convert it to my SafetyLit database format.
David W. Lawrence commented
This would allow an ORCID record-holder to universally select the presentation format of her or his works. The current disorganization makes it difficult to use one's ORCID record with grant applications, etc. because these can have different requirements for how a bibliography should be formatted/displayed.