GoogleCodeExporter
commented
9 years ago For all Canadensys datasets I have decided to populate datasetName and
datasetID as follows:
datasetName: "University of British Columbia Herbarium (UBC) - Vascular Plant
Collection"
1. We populate this term with the title of the dataset, as recorded in eml.xml
metadata. It's also the name that appears on IPT:
http://data.canadensys.net/ipt/resource.do?r=ubc-vascular-specimens
2. It follows the definition
(http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#datasetName): "The name identifying the
data set from which the record was derived." Once you download the dataset and
merge it with other records or use it for something, datasetName does indeed
identify the dataset from which the record was derived: the original published
dataset on IPT.
3. Two collections already populated this term, to indicate the subcollection.
For UBC, that subcollection is its own dataset on IPT, so the name still
indicates the subcollection. For MT, "Marie-Victorin Herbarium (MT)" now
replaces "vascular plants" & "bryophytes". Those subcollections use the same
running number, database and dataset, so there is really no point in indicating
the subcollection.
4. Users can use datasetName to cite the dataset. It will be recommended as
such in the Canadensys norms.
datasetID: "http://data.canadensys.net/ipt/archive.do?r=ubc-vascular-specimens"
1. We populate this term with the URL of the dataset.
2. It follows the definition
(http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#datasetID): "An identifier for the set
of data. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a
collection or institution." The URL is indeed an identifier for the dataset, it
is even globally unique. You can click the URL and get more information, so it
is actionable. As for persistence: it will work until the Canadensys domain
disappears or the publisher decides to remove the dataset. Any link from the
GBIF registry or a data paper will also be broken when that happens, so we have
that problem anyway.
3. Right now, this URL is a better alternative than the non-clickable UUID
issued by GBIF. It can also be provided BEFORE the dataset is published (the
GBIF UUID is only issued AFTER publication). If at some point GBIF issues DOIs
for datasets, those can be used, but they will probably point to the same URL.
4. The URL in datasetID and the name in datasetName apply to the same unit (see
point 3 in the issue description). This is now consistent with
collectionCode/ID and institutionCode/ID.
5. Users can use the datasetID to cite the dataset. It will be recommended as
such in the Canadensys norms.
6. Currently, this link is not included in the eml.xml metadata, so the user
cannot find the original dataset back. This is a bug:
http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/issues/detail?id=833. Even if it
is included in the eml.xml, it is still useful to have it for each record,
especially if those records are merged with other records by an aggregator.
7. I'm wondering if I should point to the a) human readable page:
http://data.canadensys.net/ipt/resource.do?r=ubc-vascular-specimens or b) the
archive itself:
http://data.canadensys.net/ipt/archive.do?r=ubc-vascular-specimens. a) is
easier for a human to consume when he/she clicks the link in a citation, but b)
can be used for datasets not published by IPT, can be consumed by a machine and
is already used by the GBRDS. Advise would be welcome.
What do you think? Does all of this make sense?
Should we update the AppleCore guidelines to use this recommendation?Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com on 29 Mar 2012 at 2:49
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
peter.de...@gmail.comon 12 Nov 2011 at 8:19