| Issue 45: | eml-gbif-profile: schema could better represent elements associated to a collection | |
| Back to list |
In the IPT, on the Collection metadata page, there is a field for specimen preservation method. If we are correct in assuming that preservation methods are descriptors for a collection, would it not make more sense to include it inside <collection>? Similarly on the Collection metadata page of the IPT, one can describe any number of Curatorial Units. Again if the assumption is correct, and a set of curatorial units are only ever associated with a collection, does it not make sense to include this inside <collection> also? The way it is now preservation method and curatorial units float outside collection, and it's difficult during xml parsing if there are multiple <collection> elements, to know which preservation method or curatorial units actually belong to which collection.
Jan 24, 2012
Project Member
#1
kyle.br...@gmail.com
Feb 13, 2012
It has been questioned whether all elements in collection (parent collection identifier, collection identifier, and collection name) must be mandatory. Must there always be a parent collection identifier for example? An additional reminder: In the GBIF EML Profile reference guide, we refere to parent collection identifier, collection identifier, and collection name as optional elements. http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=2820&l=en Depending on whether we revise the required fields in Collection, we should revise the documentation accordingly.
Apr 12, 2013
In https://code.google.com/p/gbif-metadata/source/detail?r=402 parent collection identifier and collection identifier have been made non-mandatory. Collection name remains mandatory. |