Should a single occurrence citation not include the record ID?
Summary: Should a single occurrence citation not include the record ID?
Created: 2013-09-18 14:47:22.354
Updated: 2015-03-04 16:14:44.344
Resolved: 2015-03-04 16:14:44.314
Comment: Seems reasonable to me, business decision I'd say. [~email@example.com] ? [~firstname.lastname@example.org] ?
Created: 2013-09-26 14:15:12.571
Updated: 2013-09-26 14:15:12.571
Comment: GBIF's occurrence ID only works in our own context, and sometimes even cannot be guaranteed to be stable over time (though we want to change that). At this time, the sources ID triplet would still be of better value, unless we provide the full link to the GBIF occurrence page. http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4659 does not give specifics about single records. Worth checking with Vishwas?
Created: 2013-09-26 16:38:21.513
Updated: 2013-09-26 16:38:21.513
Comment: [~vchavan] please see the question addressed to you in the above comment. Thanks
Created: 2014-01-08 15:42:51.84
Updated: 2014-01-08 15:42:51.84
Created: 2015-03-04 16:14:44.341
Updated: 2015-03-04 16:14:44.341
I can't see any sensible way to do another citation with the current information.
We can't provide citation using only occurrenceID or the triplet, as the page holds an interpreted view of the record and those would in many cases direct a user to a different view. As it shows currently, it provides the dataset title, a URL to the interpreted view and the date it was accessed. This seems rather complete as it is. The dataset DOI should not be used, as that would imply to the user that the DOI is the citable unit, which is incorrect in this case.
I propose this remain closed, until enough information is given to clarify what is desired. Additionally I am not sure this is a "non issue" as it does not appear to be coming from the user or publisher community.