ORCID is great. I’ve learned about it before and I’ve helped with an info session for researchers in setting up an ORCID profile. It’s a great way to achieve author disambiguation and can be helpful for researchers in promoting their output, and in a lot of cases is mandated in order to receive research funding.
When I searched ORCID for “John David Burton” there were 3 results that potentially matched the name. Two of them were “John Burton”, but there was no publication information on either of these profiles so it’s hard to tell if they are the same person. There are situations where the same person has duplicate IDs. The third potential result is for “J. D. Burton“- this is our guy. He has listed other names: John David Burton, John Burton, John D. Burton. Filling in a list of aliases is great for both disambiguation and discovery. He’s also linked his Scopus author ID and ResearcherID to his author profile, which is a good move because ORCID lets you import your paper details from these products.
Toby Burrows has done the same thing with Scopus and ResearcherID. There are quite a few datasets in his list of publications, but the publication type for these is “other”. At first I felt a bit offended, assuming ORCID was implying that datasets aren’t important enough to warrant their own category. But then I found a list of supported work types in ORCID and data-set does appear as a work type under the sub-heading “other”. Either this subheading causes it to display in ORCID as “other” (though I doubt it – since other fields like journal-article appear as they are and not under their wider subheading – “publications”) or if it was just the way the records were added/imported.