Closed camwebb closed 2 weeks ago
@camwebb understood! I think while it's a kind of "localIdentifier", hence the way it's currently modeled, indeed it has this nature you describe. Perhaps best imported into TaxonWorks as a Data Attribute of the CO, instead of a formalized identifier. Will have to wait and see what @mjy and @LocoDelAssembly have to say.
It's an Identifier, and needs to be modelled as such, we can remove the restriction.
we can remove the restriction
Thanks
@mjy can or cannot?
can , we can skip the validation callback I think, but I'll have to test if that actually works
Because in botany we often make duplicate (up to 5 or more) collections of the same organism (or population) under a single collector's number, different physical specimens at different herbaria will have different catalog numbers but the same record number. Currently in TW two records with the same RecordNumber is not allowed, requiring addition of, e.g.
@K
orat ALA
to the Record number. This will 'dirty' the data for export. Can we please allow records with non-unique RecordNumbers? Thanks