Adopting organizational identifiers (RORs) in existing metadata may not be as hard as we think for DataCite members that only have a few affiliations in their metadata. However, even in these cases, some challenges remain. See https://www.tedhabermann.com/blog/2019/11/10/how-many-rors-do-we-need for more details.
Would it be worth ROR utilising other existing domain specific practices to be able to link/complement existing infrastructure and practices? i.e. EDMO (https://www.seadatanet.org/Metadata/EDMO-Organisations)
The ROR database contributed by Digital Science includes identifiers from several other lists for many RORs. There are two types of external_ids in the data: all and preferred. I am not sure what the details of this classification are, but all is generally a list of ids and preferred is either null or a single id. The counts of these ids in the current data dump are shown below. Of course, the preponderance of GRIDs reflects the source of the data more than a preference for these ids.
The EDMO looks like a great source of organizations in the marine domain. As far as I can tell, EDMO does not include a unique identifier for these organizations other than the EDMO record id. This id could be used as a “compact identifier”, e.g. edmo:4889 for the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) or the EDMO organizations could be mapped to RORs (https://ror.org/00bdqav06 in this case) to provide a connection from EDMO to the broader scientific community.
This is an interesting role for ROR - connecting domain registries to the broader community. I think this would be a worthwhile contribution to both communities.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree it would be beneficial for both communities.
Just to let you know EDMO does have a unique ID per organisation i.e. BODC and a SPARQL endpoint and all the information can be queried with machine readable information encoded in RDF.
I agree that EDMO has an identifier for each organization but I was perhaps a bit unclear in my wording. Sorry about that. I should have said: The unique identifier in EDMO is the record ID.
This id is a good example of a “compact identifier”, i.e. an identifier valid in a well-known namespace.