For those not familiar with ORCID, it is, “…a nonprofit organization helping create a world in which all who participate in research, scholarship and innovation are uniquely identified and connected to their contributions and affiliations, across disciplines, borders, and time.” What does this mean? Well, it basically is a non-profit that has built a system that is populated with growing dB of numeric identifiers for scholars who can use this ID to link all their work across the sprawling internet(z). 🙂
It just means that scholars in any field can attach their ORCID to publications so that the respective publishing platform produces a link to said scholar using a persistent identifier no matter what else that scholar produces.
In addition, ORCID is also a vocabulary that can be added to MARC-based authority cataloging, in a ‘preliminary’ (aka: test-pilot) fashion – looking like this: 024 #7 $a [insert identifier] $2 orcid. This tells the computer processing and linking authority data for persons and creators, that said authority name record, say, for ‘Jesse Lambertson,’ viewable here, is already in linked-data form, and contains information about ‘his’ ORCID profile. What this enables computers to do is make deliberate connections, across the internet, between the name as located in the Library of Congress Name Authority File (NAF) , ORCID, and publications that have ORCID attached (not too many at this point, but, Lord willing, should grow in the near future.
So, on the surface, is it simply an identifier. But it is also a tool that enables more snug relationships to be defined between creators and their works across the exponentially growing networked information universe.
Good news, even with my several columns on BIBFRAME and its implementation in LD4P‘s Sinopiaeditor for TS-SIS’s Technical Services Law Librarian publication. (TSLL). I am submitting my summer 2020 report for the granting Special Interest Sections.
For this report, I will generally describe the survey responses, lay out the plan for future writing on the topic, and describe the technical difference of metadata in the form of RDF and linked-open-data. The grant committee is expecting this report by the end of this week [2020-07-17] (aye…). But I am pretty far along (despite my super busy week).
The next steps will be to step-up my external publication efforts, produce a FINAL report to the grant committee in September, and then…well, I have more ideas.
I have acquired the right-plenty collection of responses from my national survey (with a few international contributors) about use and expectations of BIBFRAME and Sinopia. The survey data will generate some kind of writing associated with it separately from the larger project (even as it becomes subsumed by the larger ‘thing’) because I want a whole section of analysis on the people-side of the work.
I have also been working on getting ‘under the hood’ of the technical aspects to the BIBFRAME Editor as implemented by LD4P’s Sinopia. This part has been slower – not for lack of interest or confusion, but the shift to remote working (due to Covid 19) has messed up some routines. Many of these are being put back together…anyway..I am getting a solid education of the JSON Schema – which organizes much of the order in the background. This part has been super fun to see the ranges of applications that use JSON as well as its potential.
Note, I am not at all a programmer – but my systems-oriented thinking grows.