[Rdap] CrossRef or Other DOIs for Data Sets

[Sebastian Karcher]

I'm curious what other people say, but my sense is that using CrossRef for Data is fine depending on the (meta)data.

It is more common to use DataCite DOIs for data and the biggest advantage would be that the DataCite XML schema can hold richer and more meaningful metadata for data than CrossRef's UnixRef. (There are also differences in the cost structure, which DataCite basically using a flat fee structure and CrossRef charging per DOI).

Whether that's worth it depends on the quality of the metadata curated for the and budget constraints if you're already a CrossRef member: it is definitely _hugely_ more important to assign a DOI to a dataset at all than which RA issues it.


Hth,

Sebastian

________________________________
From: Rdap <rdap-bounces at asis.org> on behalf of Hutchinson, Alvin <HUTCHINSONA at si.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:57 PM
To: 'Research Data, Access and Preservation'; rdap at mail.asis.org
Subject: [Rdap] CrossRef or Other DOIs for Data Sets

Does anyone feel strongly about using (or not using) a certain flavor of DOI for research data sets?

We are the CrossRef registration agency for the Smithsonian and we've been doing publications for years but lately have been approached by scientists who want a DOI both for link permanence and citability.

Would anyone recommend against using CrossRef in favor of another DOI type? And if so, which one(s)?


Please pardon my ignorance and let me know if there's something obvious I am missing.

Thanks,

Alvin


Alvin Hutchinson
Smithsonian Libraries
202.633.1031


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kunverj.com/pipermail/rdap/attachments/20160913/15343214/attachment.html>