Hi all,
this question concerns the inclusion of PIDs in the metadata markup of Landing Pages, e.g. using the popular, which provides a means to describe the semantics of page content.
As far as I am aware, “@id” is the first choice among repositories including the ORCID in (see e.g. this randomly selected example from Zenodo:

Is there a good practice/official recommendation to include ORCID and ROR in other than using the general “@id”?
Maybe there are talks going on to between ROR/ORCID/DataCite/others with ?
Any thoughts/updates on a possible extension to ?



@mhfenner @Helena @daslerr Any thoughts?

Hi Akraft

ORCID currently supports JSON-LD via content negotiation. Meaning that if you have an ORCID iD you can pull the metadata straight from the identifier URI. Our content negotiation docs are at

We encountered some small issues implementing Mainly that a work can have an author, but an author cannot have a work, which from an ORCID perspective is somewhat back-to-front. We did try to reach out to but didn’t get far and in the end overcome them using a JSON-LD ‘trick’ of inverse relationships. It’s not ideal, but it works.

We are considering embedding into our public landing pages. But we do not have a good idea of how this will be used, or the use cases for using it as it’s read anonymously. You can see the card on our roadmap here:

I’d suggest that our current record format is pretty close to best practice for representing a scholar, and we did work with linked data folks when designing it, but I’d be happy to stand corrected. Personally, I’d rather not diverge/extend the regular schema without some strong use cases to back it up.

I know Datacite support JSON-LD and we worked with them when we put our own in place. I’m sure they will have something more to say on the matter.

Tom Demeranville
ORCID Product Director.