Improve citation for records using CETAF identifiers

[timrobertson100]

This comes after a discussion with @qgroom and Ana C. during the BiCIKL meeting in Seville.

There has been a big push to adopt CETAF Identifiers on records such as this example from Meise.

On the GBIF page, we currently have a citation of the following which is reasonable to cite the information visible:

Meise Botanic Garden (2022). Meise Botanic Garden Herbarium (BR). Version 1.27. Meise Botanic Garden. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/wrthhx accessed via GBIF.org on 2022-05-03. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3033572284

We would like to raise the visibility of the source record. We propose to add a machine tag on all datasets that use CETAF IDs, and for records coming from those datasets, we modify the citation to also refer to the source.

Meise Botanic Garden (2022). Meise Botanic Garden Herbarium (BR). Version 1.27. Meise Botanic Garden. Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/wrthhx accessed via GBIF.org on 2022-05-03. https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3033572284 and http://www.botanicalcollections.be/specimen/BR5030170057561

There are alternatives we could consider such as multiple citation blocks, but this would be an easy addition and enough to ensure the original specimen is easily linked.

CC @ahahn-gbif for possible comment.

[MortenHofft]

I gather it is the identifier or reference that should be used in the citation. Would it make sense to have a more generic machineTag instead of something CETAF specific, that stated any other fields that should be added to the citation? Something a la (just making up here)

namespace: gbif.occurrence.citation
name: occurrenceField
value: identifier

namespace: gbif.occurrence.citation
name: template
value: "http://meise.be/{occurrenceID}"

[aguentsch]

There are alternatives we could consider such as multiple citation blocks, but this would be an easy addition and enough to ensure the original specimen is easily linked.

I support the idea as a quick solution for now. However, a more structured might be needed if more IDs come into play (e.g. DiSSCo NSIDs). In particular it would be good if each identifier would indicate the ID schema it belongs to.