Recommend that we enhance the visibility and scope of citation and attribution at the checklist record level

10802
Reporter: dremsen
Assignee: mdoering
Type: Improvement
Summary: Recommend that we enhance the visibility and scope of citation and attribution at the checklist record level
Environment: This issue is related to how data provenance information is displayed in ChecklistBank and in the upcoming species pages.
Priority: Critical
Resolution: Duplicate
Status: Closed
Created: 2012-02-09 11:27:04.197
Updated: 2013-08-29 14:45:43.571
Resolved: 2012-05-25 11:39:39.576
        
Description: Currently, ChecklistBank provides little record-level visibility in regard to the authors and rightsholders responsible for the publication of species checklists.  This recently was raised as a serious issue by a checklist publisher in Belgium.  In this case, the appropriate dataset citation was included in the EML metadata, under the proper  element.  The problem, in this case, is that the citation information is not carried forward into the record level data display, which is where the authors expect to see it.  In this case, the display of the dataset level citation would have been sufficient.  There are, however, other cases, where additional citation may be provided by a data publisher at the record level, and in this case, I recommend this should also be accommodated and made visible in the taxon-usage displays

Specifically, can we consider to

display the following on a taxon-usage page

usage.bibligraphicCitation AND, if it exists,  usage.rightsHolder
else
sub_dataset.citation
else
dataset.citation
else
dataset.title

I would favor that the citation information be additive - appending the information in the order presented rather than having each element replacing the preceding one.]]>
    

Author: dremsen@gbif.org
Comment: Andrea - I thought you might be the best person to consult on this issue.  Let me know if I am wrong. This is something I consulted Markus on. - best David
Created: 2012-02-09 11:27:59.214
Updated: 2012-02-09 11:27:59.214

Author: ahahn@gbif.org
Comment: Clarification: if there is both a data-record level citation and a dataset-level citation, both should be displayed rather than defaulting to the record-level one (Dave, oral comm.)
Created: 2012-02-09 12:11:16.533
Updated: 2012-02-09 12:11:16.533

Author: mdoering@gbif.org
Comment: Plus there might be 3 levels as in case of GSDs with Catalogue of Life
Created: 2012-02-09 12:35:26.157
Updated: 2012-02-09 12:35:26.157

Author: ahahn@gbif.org
Comment: Thanks - added to proposal at http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-197 (ok?)
Created: 2012-02-09 13:00:45.8
Updated: 2012-02-09 13:00:45.8

Author: mdoering@gbif.org
Comment: 197 proposal sounds ideal, lets do that!
Created: 2012-05-25 11:30:33.115
Updated: 2012-05-25 11:30:33.115

Author: mdoering@gbif.org
Comment: superseded by new issue for concrete proposal: http://dev.gbif.org/issues/browse/POR-197
Created: 2012-05-25 11:39:39.6
Updated: 2012-05-25 11:39:39.6