The support.orcid.org website is on a UserVoice platform that has a different privacy policy from our other sites. You may view the details at http://support.orcid.org/tos
X

I suggest that...

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 "Metadata for publications should be entered using a form _not_ free text" (https://support.orcid.org/forums/175591/suggestions/3266048 ) ticket is implemented.

See prior discussion at the Zotero forums (http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/27247/orcid-profiles/#Comment_143596 )

74 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Andy Mabbett shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    declined  ·  AdminORCID (EMEA) (Admin, ORCID) responded  · 

    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.

    -Catalina
    ORCID Support

    10 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • AdminORCID (EMEA) (Admin, ORCID) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We are very sorry about the long delay in updating this iDea following publication of the recommendations of the metadata working group in September 2013 (see http://orcid.org/blog/2013/09/09/works-metadata-recommendations-our-working-group - to clarify, this was the group that you kindly served on yourself).

        Being a non profit with limited resources, unfortunately, we cannot always develop every feature our community requests. Since we are already marking up lists of works with metadata using our own schema through the ORCID API, which is free and publicly available, we have decided to prioritize other iDeas at least for now. We do expect that this topic will be raised again as part of Metadata2020, and warmly invite you to get involved with this initiative once it officially launches later this year, and we've edited our previous response with the correct information about this.

        Our apologies for the confusing date change on your comment: this is due to the way our ticketing system works - every time we update the status of an iDea, the date of the original reply gets updated as well.

        Thanks for your iDea and comments; please feel free to contact us directly at support[at]orcid.org if you have any further concerns.

        Warm regards,
        The ORCID Community Team

      • Andy Mabbett commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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 (EMEA) (Admin, ORCID) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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

        Kind regards,
        The ORCID Community Team

      • MJ commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      • Andy Mabbett commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The works metadata working group, on which I did indeed sit, reported a while ago. Where does this proposal stand, now?

      • David W. Lawrence commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        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.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base