Greetings. In general I think it’s very useful and tries to strike the balance of being appropriately general & specific; and does a good job of acknowledging the variety of PID types. I do have a couple of comments for clarification:
22.214.171.124 “In some cases absolute fixity of the referent is required”–an example is given but not really overall criteria for in what cases this would apply. That may be just fine if the idea is to let various stakeholders use their judgment on this, but if you have particular ideas/criteria, it could be useful to state them explicitly.
- Roles & Responsibilities
This all makes sense; and also I wonder if there are formal groups w/in EOSC that would have roles to be articulated. Some of these are mentioned in the Rationale, but I wonder if that information is better placed (or even repeated) in section 4. And there may be other EOSC examples as well.
5.5 “Granularity of PIDs is very much dependent on the communities and it will change over time.”
This is true (as is the paragraph in general), but I also think that there would be a role for standards here, in setting rules/conventions for what level of granularity should be used (i.e., would this not be the role of the PID Authority?).
7.7 “certified based on agreed rule sets”–how would those differ from the principles set out in this document? (and I see someone else already has raised the question of the certification body; nb, it would be useful to reference documents on the certification examples (DONA, ePIC, DOI))
8.1. the “EU research community needs to be represented in the governance structure…”; I see Natasha commented on this as well–I assumed you meant the governance structure of the Service Providers, but questions could be:
– if it’s as Natasha thought that it’s to ensure compliance with the policy, simply involvement from someone from the EU research community (who may/may not have a connection with the EOSC or knowledge of this policy) may not fit that goal
– if this refers to membership on Boards of Directors (which many PID Service Providers do have) , there’s ambiguity in how to define “research community”–just active researchers would exclude valuable people involved in research infrastructure ; one may or may not have to define this at this point, but I wonder if this could become a point of debate
And some minor editing comments:
- 7.1 I believe that would be Infrastructures plural if you’re referring to ERICs as a named concept.
- Policy is capitalized in some places and not others
- Fully alphabetising the glossary would be useful. Also, other concepts it might be useful to have in the glossary: technology readiness levels