Open MortenHofft opened 1 year ago
I noticed this when I was working with another USDA-ARS Bee Lab to review their data. I'm thinking having the institutionCode = USDA-ARS will be the most amenable to all the ARS labs and then have a collection for each under the higher level institution. I don't completely know what to do with all the legacy institutions but that's what I'm going to recommend to any new USDA-ARS datasets coming in.
Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory
https://www.gbif.org/dataset/10e44c48-0839-4a20-86d5-f0e23ae2e366
published by USDA-ARS Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research
560K unmapped
For all records it is the case:
Collection code | BBSL
Institution code | USDA-ARS
In GrSCiColl we have collection Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research (code:
BBSL
) from institution USDA/ARS (code:SWSL
)We also have the institution USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) code:
USDA-ARS
.I suppose we should either
USDA-ARS
institutionSWSL
. Or we add a defaultValue for institutionId: and force it to theSWSL
-one.Which of the two depends on what level they want group their data.
This is a bit difficult to untangle because USDA ARS has so many institutions/collections. I suspect the real world is more complex than our 2-tier model. But it would nice if we could ensure some level of consistency.
We could have institution
USDA ARS
and everything else as collections. Or we could have no occurrences attached toUSDA ARS
institution, and instead have multiple institutions with the prefixUSDA/ARS
which then could have multiple collections of their own. Or some mix? It isn't clear to me how this is best organised. But it looks like it might need some restructuring.