You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The iDigBio request for comments on a GUID policy
https://www.idigbio.org/content/globally-unique-identifiers-guid raises the
issue of what the GUIDs in various TDWG DarwinCore terms are intended to
reference. We should provide guidance on the use of the occurranceID and
dcterms:references terms.
We should probably amplify the DarwinCore statement about occurranceID being an
identifier of the underlying thing (and clarify if we expect this to be a
herbarium sheet or a duplicate set) rather than it's digital representation.
I'll suggest we should support and amplify the DarwinCore suggestion of using
the scheme urn:catalog:[institutionCode]:[collectionCode]:[catalogNumber] for
occurranceID when a GUID is not available.
We could also suggest use of dcterms:references as a pointer to a canonical
digital representation of the occurrance. This appears to be what is done in
the DarwinCore examples of
references=http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861 and
occurranceID=urn:catalog:FMNH:Mammal:145732
Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 2 Feb 2012 at 8:11
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Just discussing occurranceID and botanical duplicates with Bob Morris. The
definition of occurranceID clearly points to the Occurrance from which the
duplicates are all derived, so all herbarium sheets that are members of the
same duplicate set should end up with the same occurranceID. We should,
however, be able to get away with starting by issuing distinct GUIDs for the
occurranceID for each herbarium sheet, then asserting which herbarium sheets
are members of the same duplicate set, then carrying out an action like issuing
owl:sameAs on these occurranceIDs.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
[email protected]
on 2 Feb 2012 at 8:11The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: