Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

UKSG 2018 Breakout - Organisation Identifier Registry update - Pentz


Published on

Organization identifiers are a key part of the scholarly
communications infrastructure. At the beginning of 2017
Crossref, DataCite and ORCID formed a working group to
establish principles and specifications for an open, independent, non-profit identifier registry focused on the disambiguation of researcher affiliations. The group published a set of recommendations and a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit comment and interest from the broader scholarly community in developing the registry. This session will give an overview of the work and an update on current progress.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

UKSG 2018 Breakout - Organisation Identifier Registry update - Pentz

  1. 1. Organization IDs or “The Case of the Missing Leg” UKSG, April 2018 Ed Pentz Executive Director @epentz
  2. 2. Scholarly infrastructure
  3. 3.
  4. 4. • Not-for-profit global initiative • 80+ members worldwide > 814 data centers > 13 million DOIs > 10,00,000++ resolutions/month DataCite Snapshot
  5. 5. The power of PIDs
  6. 6. So now what?
  7. 7. We still have a problem
  8. 8. The problem:
  9. 9. The problem: Content identifiers: DataCite Crossref Contributor identifiers: ORCID
  10. 10. The problem: Content identifiers: DataCite Crossref Contributor identifiers: ORCID Organisation identifiers:
  11. 11. ISNI? Ringgold? IP Registry? Funder Registry IDs? GRID? OrgRef? Open Corporates? LEI? The problem: Content identifiers: DataCite Crossref Contributor identifiers: ORCID Organisation identifiers:
  12. 12. The problem: Content identifiers: DataCite Crossref Contributor identifiers: ORCID Organisation identifiers:
  13. 13. We aren’t the only ones who think so…
  14. 14. “Stakeholders interviewed for this study typically described identifying organisations as “a nightmare.” —JISC/CASRAI Organisation ID study
  15. 15. There is a well documented need for a comprehensive, open, and accessible organisation identifier infrastructure.
  16. 16. There is a lot of excellent work being done and excellent services and providers tackling pieces of the problem, but gaps remain.
  17. 17. Content identifiers: DataCite Crossref Contributor identifiers: ORCID Organisation identifiers: Gaps
  18. 18. Why Us?
  19. 19. • We all need Organisation Identifiers • We know the identifier space • We each represent a broad community • We are willing to take it on
  20. 20. We cannot create a completely new organisation for every identifier initiative we create.
  21. 21. Why Now?
  22. 22. • Action is needed, and the community seems to be ready • We have a very good understanding of the requirements • The energy and commitment exist
  23. 23. What has been done?
  24. 24. • Gathered work from CASRAI, Jisc, NISO, ODIN, RDA & THOR. • Assembled illustrative use cases • Consulted with the community at CNI and Force11 in 2016 • Consulted with other players in the organisation identity space • Consulted with our respective members.
  25. 25. Requirements
  26. 26. Organizational
  27. 27. ORCID Principles
  28. 28. coverage governance sustainability insurance
  29. 29. “Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure” Bilder G, Lin J, Neylon C (2015)
  30. 30. Technical
  31. 31. “But aren’t organisation identifiers easier than identifiers for people?” (cue laughter)
  32. 32. • Merge • Split • Have Aliases (e.g. “Trade Name”) • Die (e.g. bankruptcy) • Be Reborn (e.g. emerge from bankruptcy) • Have Sub organisations • Have Affiliated organisations Organisations do irritating things like….
  33. 33. Harvard University
  34. 34. Subscriptions Subscriptions Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library
  35. 35. 128.103.*.* 131.142.*.* 140.247.*.* 207.86.182.* 134.174.4.* -- 134.174.7.* 134.174.14.* -- 134.174.17.* 134.174.140.* -- 134.174.174.* 134.174.178.* -- 134.174.191.* 134.174.193.* 199.94.0.* -- 199.94.47.* Subscriptions Subscriptions
  36. 36. Membership Membership Harvard University
  37. 37. Legal Entity Legal Entity President & Fellows of Harvard College
  38. 38. Affiliations Affiliations Harvard University - Berkman Center for Internet & Society
  39. 39. What is an “organisation”?
  40. 40. Organization Identifier Project gets underway ● Organization Identifier Project: A Way Forward (Cruse, Haak, & Pentz, 2016) ○ ● Organization Identifier Provider Landscape (Bilder, Brown, & Demeranville, 2016) ○ ● Technical Considerations for an Organization Identifier Registry (Fenner, Paglione, Demeranville, & Bilder, 2016) ○
  41. 41. the structure, principles, and technology specifications for an open, independent, non-profit organization identifier registry to facilitate the disambiguation of researcher affiliations ORG ID Project =
  42. 42. Organization Identifier Working Group ● Remit: to develop a plan to launch and sustain an open, independent, non-profit organization identifier registry that focuses on disambiguating researcher affiliations. This will include a business, governance and operations model, scope of an MVP, start up funding requirements and a plan to raise the required funds. ● Public request for expressions of interest to be on the Working Group
  43. 43. Christopher Brown Senior Co-design Manager, Jisc John Chodacki, Chair Director, University of California Curation Center (UC3), CDL President, Chief Financial & Operating Officer, Ringgold Laura Cox Tim Devenport Lead Consultant to ICEDIS, EDItEUR Mike Frame Chief of Scientific Data Integration and Visualization, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Danny Goroff Vice President and Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Christina Hoppermann Senior Manager Metadata, Springer Nature Andres Mori Data Projects Lead, Digital Science Paul Peters Chief Executive Officer, Hindawi Publishing Andrew Pitts Managing Director Publisher Solutions International/IP Registry Kristin Ratan, Consultant Executive Director, Collaborative Knowledge Foundation Thomas Vestdam Head of Product Technology, Elsevier Simeon Warner Director, Repository Development, Cornell University Library Helen Szigeti, Consultant ORG ID Working Group Arthur Smith Lead Data Analyst American Physical Society
  44. 44. Working Group Output • Governance Principles and Recommendations - • Product Principles and Recommendations - • Request for Information - to solicit comment and interest from the broader research community in providing data, hosting, and/or resources to start up an open registry.
  45. 45. Governance recommendations 1. Adopt a hosted non-profit model so that there is independent governance for the Registry and no new organization in the initial launch phase 2. That the WG identify existing organizations that would be willing to act as a host for the Registry and contract with the Registry governance body to provide services 3. That the WG identify existing organizations that would be willing to commit resources for phase 1. This includes donations, grants, loans, in kind donations (staff) and secondment of staff.
  46. 46. Governance recommendations 4. The new Registry organization should be non-profit, non-stock, transparent, well regulated, include a broad set of stakeholders in governance, and have protections in place for assets to go to another non-profit with similar mission if wound up. 5. The host organization should be non-profit, non-stock, transparent, well regulated, sustainable and have protections in place for assets to go to another non-profit with a similar mission if wound up. 6. All software developed to run and support the Registry should be Open Source.
  47. 47. Product recommendations Principle 1: The openPIIR is intended for use by the research community, for the purposes of increasing the use of organization identifiers in the community and enabling connections between organization records in various systems. Principle 2. The openPIIR will derive utility through a hybrid staff- and organization-curation service model, and will encourage cross-talk between existing registry providers. Principle 3: Access to organizations for managing openPIIR records shall be via permission. openPIIR staff will be responsible for granting record management permission.
  48. 48. Product recommendations Principle 4. The openPIIR will focus on the organization levels that are most pertinent for the affiliation use case (who employs, who educates, who funds, etc). Principle 5. The openPIIR will require data elements for each record sufficient to uniquely identify the organization. Principle 6. openPIIR documentation and required data will be available for use under a recommended Open Definition conformant license, in human and machine readable formats.
  49. 49. Product recommendations Principle 7. The openPIIR will seek seed data from organization identifier providers who serve the research community, whose data meet the metadata requirements, and which data are available under a recommended Open Definition conformant license. Principle 8. There will be open criteria and documented processes for inclusion/exclusion, creating, merging, and deprecating an openPIIR record. Principle 9. Record changes will be tracked and recorded using an open provenance model. openPIIR records may be deprecated, but no assigned identifier will be deleted.
  50. 50. Product recommendation Principle 10. The openPIIR will maintain a customer support ticketing system and an open knowledge base.
  51. 51. 22 RFI Responses Australian National Data Service The British Library California Digital Library CASRAI Clarivate Analytics Crossref DataCite Digital Science euroCRIS European Directory of Marine Organisations (EDMO) Foundation for Science and Technology - National Scientific Computation Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) ISNI International Agency IP-Registry (PSI Ltd) Library and Information Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences North Rhine-Westphalian Library Service Centre OCLC Office of Scientific and Technical Information, DOE ORCID re3data Ringgold
  52. 52. Stakeholder Meeting: January 2018, Girona, Spain 1. High level review of the ORG ID Working Group documents a. Governance Principles and Recommendations b. Product Principles and Recommendations 2. Review of the RFI responses 3. Establishing a Governance structure for the Registry Initiative 4. Establish initial governing board 5. Presentations by organizations interested in serving as a host organization. 6. Next Steps
  53. 53. Presentations Over 20 organizations responded to the RFI, of which 6 were interested in hosting the Registry. We heard presentations from: • British Library • ISNI • California Digital Library • Crossref • OCLC • PSI
  54. 54. Next Steps •Steering group → Interim Executive Committee tasked with developing a proposal for standing up registry: • Define guiding principles, Partner roles and responsibilities, decision process for the Governing Council, and Host criteria • Working Group + RFI respondents+ Org ID meeting participants = Interim Community Governing Council • IEC to float the proposal with the IGC for comments then take steps to finalize the host organization. • ORCID, DataCite and Crossref now reviewing proposal and getting approval from their boards/executive committees - Onyar is the working name
  55. 55. Crossref - what do we want to achieve? • An open, community-governed, sustainable organization identifier registry • Address the scholarly affiliation use case for the research community - focus • Balance trust in governance, sustainability and operational efficiency • Add affiliations to the metadata members deposit with Crossref • Merge Open Funder Registry into the new registry
  56. 56. Crossref’s participation • Crossref offering to participate in governance and contribute resources (financial, technical, people) - strong support from the board • Crossref offering to act as Host under direction of Governing Board and MOU • Reviewed ORCID founding in 2009/10 - a working board used an MOU to get things going (technical pilot) with with resources from many organizations - this a good model • Crossref provided staff, technical and back office support to the ORCID effort
  57. 57. Crossref as Host • Crossref would operate under Governing Board and transparent MOU • Host doesn’t necessarily mean physically host the registry - which is likely to be in the Cloud • Can offer support with operations and administration • Finance - collecting and disbursing funds, reporting • HR/payroll - salaries, benefits, contractors • Office space if needed (Oxford and Boston)
  58. 58. Crossref’s Analyses • Our data provider analysis of registries confirmed there are existing registries that can be used and should be assessed against the requirements of the Governance and Product Principles and Recommendations.
  59. 59. Crossref’s Analyses • Our expense and staffing analysis (looking at existing organizations and rates of change in existing registries) shows: • Year 1 costs of $730,000 and ongoing costs of $644,00/year • Staffing: 3 full time staff supplemented by contractors and outsourced data curation
  60. 60. Crossref’s Analyses • Initial funding/business modelling - based on our own services and others • Grants/donations for startup/year 1 costs • Membership/infrastructure fee based on a % of revenue from organizations directly participating/supporting the collaboration • Paid SLA API with added services (notifications, bulk downloads)
  61. 61. Current status ● Crossref, ORCID, DataCite boards reviewing proposed governance structure and operational plan ● Agreement by the end of April - final approval by ORCID board mid-May and then report back to the community
  62. 62. Further information Stakeholder meeting write up with link to RFI responses - -report-stakeholder-meeting Org ID Working Group overview and documents -