I am following up on issue 244 about the description of the field IdentificationQualifier. The explanation 'A brief phrase or a standard term ("cf.", "aff.") to express the determiner's doubts about the Identification.' is rather general.
Does this means that if a curator has doubts about the identification could write down something like “identification uncertain” or “identification wrong” in the identificationQualifier field? We have at our museum a discussion what to do with the field “certainty” that exists among other identification fields in our collection management system. Some curators use this field to express their doubts about the identification, but without further specifications.
Personally I would suggest to put this type of information in the identificationRemarks field and I am wondering what the opinions are about this issue.
An identificationRemarks field is lacking in our collection management system, but we do have various identificationQualifier fields. When it is clear that this kind of general “brief phrases” should not be part of the identificationQualifiers, we might consider to change some fields in our CMS in order to map this information better to DarwinCore.
Jeroen Creuwels,
Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands.
I am following up on issue 244 about the description of the field IdentificationQualifier. The explanation 'A brief phrase or a standard term ("cf.", "aff.") to express the determiner's doubts about the Identification.' is rather general. Does this means that if a curator has doubts about the identification could write down something like “identification uncertain” or “identification wrong” in the identificationQualifier field? We have at our museum a discussion what to do with the field “certainty” that exists among other identification fields in our collection management system. Some curators use this field to express their doubts about the identification, but without further specifications. Personally I would suggest to put this type of information in the identificationRemarks field and I am wondering what the opinions are about this issue. An identificationRemarks field is lacking in our collection management system, but we do have various identificationQualifier fields. When it is clear that this kind of general “brief phrases” should not be part of the identificationQualifiers, we might consider to change some fields in our CMS in order to map this information better to DarwinCore. Jeroen Creuwels, Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands.