It would seem logical to select Handle because we already maintain two Handle subsystems, but there are a few disadvantages to this option, dependent on configuration choices, most importantly the way the PID’s are constructed and managed.Ī PID always consists of at least an indication of the PID system, a code identifying the assigning institution and the actual unique identifier within that context, optionally including a code for the “assignment stream” to differentiate between possible multiple collections, organizational units, sources, etc. provide persistent availability information for that object on the web (the PID-URI)Īmong the available PID systems (as described in my article “ Persistent identifiers for heritage objects“) the final choice was between Handle and ARK.uniquely identify a specific object (the actual PID).The new ARK system will coexist with the two other PID systems we already have in place: Handle for the PURE/DARE institutional scholarly output repository and the Allard Pierson image repository, and Datacite DOI for the institutional figshare research datasets.įirst of all, it is good to remember the hybrid, dual function of persistent identifiers: Implementation of ARK PID’s for the other collection description systems will follow in due course. Since November 3, 2020, ARK PID’s are available for our university library Alma catalogue through the Primo user interface. In my previous post in the Infrastructure for heritage institutions series, “ Change of course“, I mentioned the coming implementation of ARK persistent identifiers for our collection objects. In the Digital Infrastructure program at the Library of the University of Amsterdam we have reached a first milestone.
0 kommentar(er)
