6980 datacite reservation upgrade #7142
Conversation
…m/IQSS/dataverse into 6980-datacite-reservation-upgrade
| @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ | |||
| # Dataverse installatins using Datacite: upgrade action required. | |||
|
|
|||
| For Dataverses using Datacite v5.0 changes the process of registering the Global Identifier (DOI) for the dataset. Instead of registering it when the dataset is published for the first time, Dataverse will try to "reserve" the DOI when it's created (by registering it as a "draft", using Datacite terminology). When the user publishes the dataset, the DOI will be publicized as well (by switching the registration status to "findable"). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| For Dataverses using Datacite v5.0 changes the process of registering the Global Identifier (DOI) for the dataset. Instead of registering it when the dataset is published for the first time, Dataverse will try to "reserve" the DOI when it's created (by registering it as a "draft", using Datacite terminology). When the user publishes the dataset, the DOI will be publicized as well (by switching the registration status to "findable"). | |
| For installations using Dataverse v5.x, the process of registering the Global Identifier (DOI) for the dataset changes. Instead of registering it when the dataset is published for the first time, Dataverse will try to "reserve" the DOI when it's created (by registering it as a "draft", using Datacite terminology). When the user publishes the dataset, the DOI will be publicized as well (by switching the registration status to "findable"). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And is this really true for all types of PIDs? I couldn't tell from a quick view at the code, but if not, maybe this should be more Datacite-using specific?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm. I can change "dataverses" to "installations" if you prefer; but otherwise your proposed commit is changing what I am actually trying to say, somewhat. We want it to say "dataverses (or installations) using Datacite" - because this is Datacite-specific, and I do want to repeat it in this paragraph. That sentence may need a comma - but I don't think it should go where you are adding it. I meant to say something along the lines of
"For (Dataverse) installations (that are) using Datacite, (the upgrade to) v5.0 will change the process of ..."
May not have been my best sentence ever, I'll try improve it. But not sure I like your version either, sorry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fine. I was just concerned by a non-existing "DataCite 5.0" 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A missing period? using Datacite. v5.x changes....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@qqmyers it should be properly punctuated in the current version, yes.
|
Maybe better use Markdown as release notes on GitHub are using Markdown instead of Restructured Text. Sphinx offers support for rendering Markdown files aside rST, using this in dv-k8s... |
Co-authored-by: Philip Durbin <philip_durbin@harvard.edu>
Co-authored-by: Philip Durbin <philip_durbin@harvard.edu>
|
Yes, I always get conufsed, about markdown vs. rst... But what is it that it currently doesn't like - the "tripple back tick"? I thought that was md... Will check! |
|
Could just be the lack of a file extension? There's a mix of .md and no extension in the doc/release-notes dir and the .md ones are rendering |
D'oh! |
|
(let's put this PR on hold, until #7147 is finalized) |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a documentation-only PR, the upgrade instructions for installations using Datacite - the DOIs for any unpublished drafts will need to be reserved.
See the discussion in the issue #6980 for more information.
Which issue(s) this PR closes:
Closes #6980
Special notes for your reviewer:
The good news is that we don't need to do anything special for any DOIs that are "unpublished" in the Dataverse, but somehow already exist on the Datacite side. It's not even necessary to check if any such cases exist before running the batch reserve job as described in the instruction.
Suggestions on how to test this:
Can be tested on any system running the develop branch (in its current state), and configured with a Datacite test account (not "fake"!). If it has any datasets created before the "reserve DOIs" PR was merged, they will be reported by the "unreserved" API, and they can be reserved as described in the instruction. If there are no such legacy unreserved DOIs, the condition can be emulated by setting the GlobalIdCreateTime to null in the dvobject table for some draft dataset(s).
Does this PR introduce a user interface change? If mockups are available, please link/include them here:
Is there a release notes update needed for this change?:
Additional documentation: