GCRI · 登记册
Registry 互操作性
Registries are only as useful as the links between them. A record that cannot be referenced stably, exported faithfully or read by another system becomes an island, and islands drift apart. This page sets out how stable references, persistent identifiers, metadata crosswalks, export formats and interface semantics let registries exchange records without losing meaning, and how interoperability fails through link rot, lossy mapping and undocumented change.
工作如何开展。
Interoperability console
Registry interoperability · Crosswalk · Profile v3
Field mappings
| identifier | id | copy | 通过 |
| evidence_label | quality.label | enum map | 通过 |
| licence | rights.licence | SPDX id | Ambiguous |
| version | version | semver | 通过 |
符合性
图Interoperability console: example names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Registry interoperability: how the risk develops.
Stable references, exports and API semantics. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Link rot and content drift
Location links break when sites are reorganised, and links that still resolve may point to changed content. Without persistent identifiers and archived snapshots, references silently stop meaning what their authors intended.
Lossy crosswalks
Mapping one schema to another drops fields with no equivalent and flattens distinctions, such as several contributor roles folded into one. Round trips lose information, and each exchange makes the copies less alike.
Undocumented interface change
An interface changes a field’s meaning, format or default without a version or notice. Consumers keep parsing successfully while reading the wrong thing, and the errors surface far from the change that caused them.
Identity collision across registries
The same organisation, person or work carries different identifiers in different registries, or a local identifier is reused for different things. Joins across 系统 then merge what is distinct or split what is one.
How registry interoperability is modelled, measured and tested.
模型、其假设、数据和不确定性，以科学家或工程师会核查的形式呈现。结构遵循已发表的方法。所取数值仅为示意，不是研究发现。
数据集与来源追溯
The data classes behind registry interoperability and what is recorded about each before it is used.
| 数据类别 | 已记录溯源 | 已说明分辨率 | 许可已核查 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 卫星影像，光学与雷达 | 传感器、处理级别、获取日期 | 像元大小和重访周期 | 每景 |
| 再分析与气候模式输出 | 模型、实验、成员、版本 | 格网与时间步长 | 每次发布 |
| 原位传感器和测量站 | 测站、仪器、校准记录 | 点位与采样率 | 每个网络 |
| 人口与资产暴露 | 方法、版本年份、输入来源 | 单元大小和单位 | 每次发布 |
| 边界与参考地理 | 制作者、版本、日期 | 比例尺 | 每个版本 |
- 沿袭
- 从来源到图表的 W3C PROV 记录
- 原则
- FAIR：可查找、可访问、可互操作、可复用
- 缺口
- 显示为缺失，绝不悄然填充
Interoperability lets records from each domain move between systems.
Interoperability methods are designed for the 方法与技术系列. Crosswalks to external standards are the subject of NS-14 in the proposed Nexus Standards, with no conformity claimed.
- Crosswalk proposals.
- Interoperability test results.
衡量什么，以及衡量得如何。
每个指标都注明其单位、频率、背后的来源类型以及数值将附带的证据标签。此处不显示数值：数值由计划依据其自身权限提供。
| 指标 | 单位 | 节奏 | 来源类型 | 标签 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifier resolution success | share of resolution probes | 每日 | Resolver probes | 观测 |
| Interface availability | share of time available | 持续 | Availability monitoring | 观测 |
| Export schema conformance | share of exported records validating | 每次发布 | Schema validation | 观测 |
| Crosswalk coverage | share of fields mapped to the target schema | 每次发布 | Crosswalk register | 已声明 |
| Round-trip fidelity | share of records returned intact | 每次发布 | Round-trip test | 观测 |
| Broken outbound references | share of references | 每月 | Link checking | 观测 |
| Deprecation notice period | 天 | per interface change | Change log | 已声明 |
| Records linked to external persistent identifiers | share of records | 每月 | Identifier reconciliation | 观测 |
证据来自何处。
具名公共数据集与机构记录，各自注明许可类别。依协议获得的来源仅按其条款使用，绝不再次发布。
| 来源 | 它提供什么 | 许可类别 |
|---|---|---|
| DCAT version 3 | A vocabulary for catalogues, datasets, data services and versions in exchange | W3C document licence, free to implement |
| Schema.org | A shared vocabulary for embedding structured metadata in web pages | CC BY-SA for the vocabulary |
| OAI-PMH | A protocol for harvesting metadata from repositories | Open specification |
| Scholix link exchange | A framework and services for exchanging links between literature and data | CC0 for link metadata |
| re3data registry of research data repositories | Descriptions of repositories with their standards, identifiers and access policies | CC0 for metadata |
| FAIRsharing | A curated registry of standards, databases and policies and their relationships | CC BY-SA for content |
| OpenAIRE Graph | An open graph linking publications, data, software, projects and organisations across sources | CC BY |
| OpenAPI 规范 | A standard description format for HTTP interfaces | Open specification, Apache licence |
由谁决定，以及证据服务于什么。
Registry prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| 谁来决定 | 问题 | 本页面服务的证据 |
|---|---|---|
| Registry and repository managers | Which schemas, identifiers and interfaces to support, and on what deprecation timetable | Crosswalk coverage, round-trip losses and the consumers depending on each interface |
| Research infrastructure funders | Whether to fund integration with an existing registry or a new parallel system | Interoperability measures, standard conformance and existing link coverage |
| 数据管理方 | Whether imported records can be merged with local ones | Identifier matches, crosswalk losses and conflicts between sources |
| National statistics offices and public data portals | Whether registry exports can feed published catalogues | DCAT conformance, licence metadata and the stability of identifiers |
该主题产生的产出
- Stable references for every record, resolving to a current view and its versions
- Exports in documented formats with schema files and published crosswalks
- An interface change log with version numbers and deprecation notices
- Round-trip tests against external registry schemas with every loss listed
What experts ask about interoperability.
- How should identifiers from different registries be linked without copying records?
- Which open formats preserve meaning, provenance and rights when records are exported?
- How are field meanings documented so that two 系统 agree on what a value means?
- How do interfaces signal that a record has changed or been withdrawn?
- How are schema changes made without breaking systems that depend on them?
Why exchange fails.
Interoperability fails at three levels. Technically, formats and protocols do not match. Semantically, the same field name means different things, so a status of active or a date of publication is silently misread. Organisationally, no one is responsible for keeping links current, so references decay. Semantic failures are the hardest to see because the data moves without error and is simply wrong at the destination.
Shared vocabularies address these. Linked-data formats such as JSON-LD carry meaning with the data, catalogue vocabularies such as DCAT describe datasets, and W3C PROV carries lineage. Methods from 数据工程、互操作性与管理 cover these standards and their trade-offs. The Registry’s planned interfaces are described on interfaces.
Designing for exchange.
- 01
Link, do not copy
Records refer to external registries by identifier, preserving aliases so an external reference still resolves.
- 02
Documented semantics
Each field’s meaning, allowed values and version are published alongside any interface.
- 03
Versioned schemas
Schema changes take a new version, and older records keep the schema they were made under.
- 04
局限
Interoperability depends on partners maintaining their own records. Mappings between vocabularies lose nuance, and an export carries rights obligations that the receiving system must honour.
Where this page’s references lead.
阅读本页时所对照的机构和文件。状态和版本会变化；每个链接都指向发布机构。
问题与解答。
What makes a reference stable?
Why not just use web addresses?
What is a crosswalk?
How are interface changes announced?
Is there an interface I can use now?
Will exports include restricted records?
Can my registry link to registry records?
从本页贡献证据。
报告 is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- 电子邮件网关 GW-GCRI从本页发送证据、更正、案例、方法、审查、翻译或概况投稿。它会带上本页标签送达，由负责的编辑接收。
- Zenodo开放存缴存缴并提交到社区用您的 ORCID iD 在 Zenodo 上发布您自己的记录，然后提交到那里的 Reports 社区。由策展人审核；DOI 仍归您所有。
- 报告GCRI查看所有贡献方式贡献类型、各自的评审方式、您获得的署名、许可协议，以及绝不接受的内容。
切勿发送个人数据、敏感基础设施细节或您无权分享的任何内容。贡献在使用前会经过审查；发送贡献不赋予署名权或编辑权，赞助也绝不能换取研究结论。
法律文件。
本网站上的地图、数据和图表仅作为背景和一般信息展示。它们不是建议、预测或预警；信息的局限见免责声明和数据说明。