This page describes whether or not different PID types are suitable for the various aspects of Developing Identifiers for Heritage Collections.
▨Exceeds the requirement, describe where the identifier does more than the aspect requires, e.g. ARKs exceed the requirement of IDs which could be persistent because they are persistent and globally resolvable.
■Meets the requirement of the aspect, describes where it meets the requirement set out in the individual aspect, e.g. ARKs are human readable PIDs so they meet that requirement.
□Does NOT meet the requirement, describes where an identifier does not meet the requirement of the aspect, e.g. CETAF Stable Identifiers are not globally resolvable so they do not meet that requirement.
− i.e. not applicable, e.g. where a PID is provided by a third party service, e.g. Wikidata an organisation cannot manage their persistence locally or where an identifier is a central registry for entities such as organisations or people, e.g. ROR or ORCID, which would not be created or managed by an institution.
We value your feedback on this resource. Any suggestions on the content or additional examples would be welcome.
To submit feedback, you can raise an issue via Github (requires an account) or you can use the Feedback button in the bottom right of each screen.