MortenHofft
commented
3 weeks ago the problem is that objects do not have an order i guess. That said most software respect ordering of maps I believe.
The fragment is nicely ordered https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/4506165246/fragment but the ordering is different when processed https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/4506165246
And we render all extensions without custom logic. We just take whatever terms come and copy them blindly in.
Another way to fix this would be for gbif.org to have a custom renderer per extension that made sure that the ordering was kept.
Representation of MoF data on portal
For dataset I added a large MoF-extension file with biometric values. On the GBIF portal I see that these represented in a somewhat non-logical order. For example: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4506165246
If measurementUnit would be placed directly after measurementValue then it will better readable, because both parameters are closely related
User: See in registry - Send email System: Chrome 127.0.0 / Windows 10.0.0 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4506165246 Window size: width 1707 - height 781 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL datasetKey: 6efaa343-80d2-4581-866a-eaa27bf5e352 publishingOrgKey: 642dd0e8-2661-4e9a-93b3-340976a8565e