What goes in catalogNumber? #227
Comments
|
The intention of dwc:catalogNumber was to capture the number separate from the codes, so just the number that went into the ledger or original catalog. |
|
Thank you John, makes perfect sense! May I suggest the definition be updated as such? |
|
Action item: Add a comment field to dwc:catalogNumber (currently there is none). Suggested text: "The value should include only the number that went into the ledger or original catalog." |
|
How about, "Unless there is a compelling reason, leave institution codes and collection codes out of the catalogNumber field and fill it instead with only the number that went into the original ledger or catalog." |
|
Ok with:
|
Closes #227 Note: also fixed a typo where the issue date for http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/version/catalogNumber-2018-09-06 was still 2017-10-06 Ping @tucotuco
|
We had some discussion in the community here in SA a few weeks back and it
was very strongly put forward that catalogNumber should be the catalog
number as it is in the specimen database, which usually includes the codes.
I tried to argue for the number only, but lost. The argument put forward
was that catalog numbers are usually represented as a the full string, with
codes, in publications, newer specimen labels and other places. I pointed
out that the move from a number without the codes, as it is in the catalog
book, to a number with codes, effectively represents the generation of a
new number, and that the number alone should then be included
dwc:otherCatalogNumbers.
…On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:52 PM Peter Desmet ***@***.***> wrote:
Ok with:
Recommended best practice is to leave institution codes and collection
codes out of catalogNumber and populate it only with the number that went
into the original ledger or catalog.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#227?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACH3QI66EMS2R773EQL2B2DQPW62TA5CNFSM4HP2T252YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEB2TF3I#issuecomment-544551661>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACH3QI4HPBKI3VTNZSOS3DLQPW62TANCNFSM4HP2T25Q>
.
--
Ian Engelbrecht PhD Pr. Nat. Sci.
Data Coordinator: Natural Science Collections Facility
South African National Biodiversity Institute
Pretoria
www.nscf.co.za
www.sanbi.org
012 843 5194
082 763 4596
i.engelbrecht@sanbi.org.za / ianicus.za@gmail.com
|
|
Based on that, we are not going to make a recommendation in the comments and leave this up to the specific collection communities. |
The current definition for catalogNumber doesn't specify whether the institution or collection codes should be included as part of this field or not. For example, at the Iziko South African Museum, the institution recently started concatenating these values to the catalog numbers in their database system. Historically (and what is represented on specimen labels until recently, and often cited in literature) there was a simple code, e.g. C1234. The institutionCode is SAMC, an example of a collection code, for entomology is ENW. The catalog numbers are now represented in the database as SAMC-ENW-C001234 (the catalog numbers are also being padded with zeros to make them the same length). Should dwc:catalogNumber be that full number or the simpler, original code given that we have other fields for the institution and collection codes?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: