Hi @TomDemeranville could you please take a look at this PR?

Hi @reality, thanks for the suggestion. We're currently looking at our work types to understand how they can better support the community and I'll add 'ontology' to the list of things to investigate. We're hoping to align with a community maintained standard as it's hard for us to maintain a vocabulary ourselves. The COAR list is looking like a strong candidate (https://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/resource_types/) as it's well maintained and also well translated, but even then we're not going to be able to support the entire long tail of work types.

Thanks for your contribution @reality! I'm making this a draft so we at ORCID decide what standard we are going to follow.

Thank you for the response. I note that the suggested vocab doesn't include a concept for ontologies or controlled vocabularies (unless i'm missing it). Maybe SIO could be a contender - though it feels like you would probably have to pare it down a bit to reach the desired level of granularity: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/ontologies/sio/classes/http%253A%252F%252Fsemanticscience.org%252Fresource%252FSIO_000015?lang=en

Sadly, this is not as simple as updating a file. We did an extensive community consultation and have tried our hardest to align with (a) demand, (b) usability and (c) an external standard from COAR

COAR itself has many subtypes of dataset that we do not support as they're just too granular for ORCID:

aggregated data
clinical trial data
compiled data
encoded data
experimental data
genomic data
geospatial data
laboratory notebook
measurement and test data
observational data
recorded data
simulation data
survey data

The latest version of COAR now includes knowledge organization system which we may consider when we have the capacity to next update the work-types we support.

Hi Tom, thanks - I think it remains quite an omission, since it doesn't really fit even loosely into any of the categories you listed, and they are a relatively major class of scientific artefacts that many people contribute authorship to.

it would be helpful to be able to reciprocally link ORCIDs and ontologies; our plan is essentially to use ORCID credits to a) incentivise people to work on standards, ontologies, and related activities and b) incentivise funding bodies to recognise the work as work. however i don't see how i can fit them correctly into the current model. good to hear it's now in COAR and would appreciate if it could be included in the next update :-)