Issue 14186
Berkeley Nat Hist Mus - three datasets flagged for deletion
14186
Reporter: jlegind
Assignee: jlegind
Type: SubTask
Summary: Berkeley Nat Hist Mus - three datasets flagged for deletion
Priority: Major
Status: InProgress
Created: 2013-10-09 12:29:47.266
Updated: 2014-09-10 10:48:38.971
Description: The following datasets must have their content deleted (only the records, not the entry itself):
0fb2c370-a84f-11de-978d-b8a03c50a862
Consortium of California Herbaria
5729fd1d-04af-46bd-9da7-0ff79977c6f8
UCJeps
58d0f326-2e85-4d0a-a744-571461220f00
UCMP
All in all, ~1.350.000 recs]]>
Author: jlegind@gbif.org
Created: 2013-10-09 15:30:56.29
Updated: 2013-10-09 15:30:56.29
Hi Joyce,
I would like to highlight an important point that I might have misunderstood. You are in fact not withdrawing the CCH, UCMP and UCJeps resources, but you are about to migrate them to Darwin Core archive using IPT. Is this perception correct?
If this is the case, I would urge you to reuse the UUID from the GBRDS registry when publishing these resources. Please follow these steps in the IPT manual http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes#Migrate_a_Resource
By migrating a resource you are keeping the resource ID and if you also keep the identifier triplet (institution code, collection code and catalog number) persistent, that is you retain the same triplet values as in the old TAPIR resource, you will maintain citations based on the occurrence identifier. This has become quite an issue in the community since researchers are increasingly calling for stable identifiers.
Regarding the owning relationship between publishing organizations and data resources, this is entirely determined by the publishers.
When you are making data resources available through GBIF via the IPT, you select the organization to which the resource belongs from a drop down menu. See section Add Organization: http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes#Add_organisation
You are required to input the organization password which can be obtained from us by request.
The Essig Museum of Entomology is listed in the GBRDS as a publisher by request, but if you decide that you want all resources collected under the Berkeley umbrella there has to be some kind of formal decision from your party.
Please let me know what you think of this.
Best
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce Gross [mailto:joyceg@berkeley.edu]
Sent: 9. oktober 2013 13:38
To: GBIF Helpdesk
Cc: 'John Deck'; portal@livelink.gbif.org
Subject: Re: updates to Berkeley Natural History Museum records on GBIF
Hi Jan,
Thanks for the updates. I'll check back in a week or so to make sure the data has been removed.
Yes, CCH, UCMP, and UCJeps will be published through the Berkeley Natural History Museum IPT. The CCH data (only) is ready now to be registered with GBIF:
http://bnhmipt.berkeley.edu/ipt/resource.do?r=cch
When these three collections (CCH, UCMP, and UCJeps) are registered, will they each become a publisher in their own right like Essig did?
This is still confusing to me. The Berkeley Natural History Museums registry will then only include the UCBG (University of California Botanical Garden)? I'm asking because the next step is to register the CCH IPT data with GBIF and the two registry choices in my IPT software are "Berkeley Natural HIstory Museums" or "Essig Museum of Entomology".
It's still not clear to me why some of the BNHMs are being registered under BNHM and some not. Has there been a change in policy about how museums under one organization are registered? Will the "Berkeley Natural History Museums" registry become obsolete if we remove the UCBG data too? (We do not have immediate plans to move the UCBG data from Tapir to IPT.) I'm not saying one way is wrong and the other is right -- but there is an inconsistency right now that seems odd.
For example, if you look at the California Academy of Sciences page:
http://data.gbif.org/datasets/provider/27
all their datasets are listed on this one page, which is nice.
If you look at the GBIF Berkeley Natural History Museum page
http://data.gbif.org/datasets/provider/13
or
http://www.gbif.org/publisher/0dc9c7a0-b5c6-11d9-a0b8-b8a03c50a862
the Essig Museum of Entomology dataset is missing (and the other datasets will be removed per our earlier discussion except the UCBG dataset). It would be nice to have all the BNHM datasets listed on one page the way the CAS data is listed, when the CCH, UCJEPS, and UCMP data become available via IPT.
Joyce