I work in the Dataverse Project community and on its repository software and would like to ensure that the community and software follow the recommendations made in “A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories” (https://doi.org/10.1101/097196), published in October 2017.
The tenth of the roadmap’s 11 recommendations is about content negotiation: “Data repositories and identifier service providers such as identifiers.org or DataCite in addition may implement content negotiation for the persistent identifier expressed as HTTP URI, returning machine readable metadata in various formats. Content negotiation is for example supported by identifiers.org and DataCite and can return metadata in XML, RDF, Bibtex and other metadata formats.”
I’m trying determine how well the Dataverse community and software follow that recommendation. Until today I was sure that repositories that use the Dataverse software and register datasets with DataCite or EZID DOIs are already following this recommendation, since those DOIs seem to have content negotiation, but I wasn’t sure about the repositories using Handles, so a colleague suggested I also ask in the PID Forum.
So now my questions are:
- Is it still the case that the Handle, DOI and ARK systems do not support real content negotiation? In the article “A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories”, the section about the tenth recommendation states that DataCite DOIs do have content negotiation, and I can follow the section’s examples to test this with DOIs from Dataverse repositories. Is that not content negotiation? Or how is that not “real” content negotiation?
- Is content negotiation possible with Handles? lukask’s wrote that the relevant PID authorities should be persuaded to put this on their roadmap. Does this make sense for Handles? (Is there an “authority” for Handles in the same way that DataCite is the authority for DataCite DOIs?)
Thanks in advance for any help!
Product Research Specialist, IQSS