This can wait until we're happy with the completeness of the publish including the pre-publish delete; I don't want to confuse the process. But before I lose track, I want to record this case here. I know our attribution format for GloBI records has always been unusual, partly because of the fields they use. I wonder if they made a change during the "supported by/refuted by" project that diverted some attribution away from our connector. Check out this EOL record:
The GLoBI record "is supported by" a record that includes a specific provider occurrence record, which the EOL record doesn't have. I'd like to track that down and use it for the Source field, when available. If it's not always populated, we can use the current method as a backup.
Re: Revise connector for GloBI resource
From Jen (Jira Bibalex): @jhammock @eliagbayani
This can wait until we're happy with the completeness of the publish including the pre-publish delete; I don't want to confuse the process. But before I lose track, I want to record this case here. I know our attribution format for GloBI records has always been unusual, partly because of the fields they use. I wonder if they made a change during the "supported by/refuted by" project that diverted some attribution away from our connector. Check out this EOL record:
https://eol.org/records/R20-PK112742945
I believe it corresponds to this GloBI search result: https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/?interactionType=interactsWith&sourceTaxon=Spirobranchus%20giganteus&targetTaxon=Bambusa
The GLoBI record "is supported by" a record that includes a specific provider occurrence record, which the EOL record doesn't have. I'd like to track that down and use it for the Source field, when available. If it's not always populated, we can use the current method as a backup.