Issue 10930

dataset: include known institution codes into "other identifiers" section

Reporter: ahahn
Type: Improvement
Summary: dataset: include known institution codes into "other identifiers" section
Priority: Minor
Resolution: WontFix
Status: Closed
Created: 2012-03-09 15:39:45.932
Updated: 2016-09-19 16:17:34.853
Resolved: 2016-09-19 16:17:34.795
Description: If, for a given dataset, we know that it belongs to an institution that uses standard coden providers for institutional codes, it would be nice to display these codes with the dataset ("Algaterra movies: owning institution: B (according to: Index Herbariorum)).

This would require knowing the coden provider (e.g. Index Herbariorum), the codens it covers, and their relation to the indexed institutions. It might be possible to get this information through cross-links with other metadata catalogs (BCI?), but we may also just allow metadata editors (institutional level) to add this information together with the registration, e.g. as editable fields for code + coden provider ("according to")]]>

Created: 2012-11-16 11:04:39.851
Updated: 2012-11-16 11:06:09.389
I seem to remember this request came in because there are many possible spelling variants of institutional names, and many possible breakdowns making an entity an "institution" (department? museum? university?), so that being able to point at a standard list and saying "this entry is the same as here in Index Herbariorum" could help a lot to answer questions around "is this new registry entry the same as one already existing?". This is all really institutional level information, though - the issue itself only refers to the consequence of then also being able to visualise it on the dataset page.


Created: 2012-11-16 11:29:56.5
Updated: 2012-11-16 11:29:56.5
It seems to me this is mostly about collection codes, not so much institutions. "B" at least is the Berlin Herbarium, not the BGBM. Sadly our registry doe not cover physical collections strictly yet, only the digital datasets that often correlate to collections, but which they are not. I would be in favor of adding such a new entity (agent type) as its very valuable information, we have several exchange standards out there (NCD, BioCASE) and even various good sources of managed information.

Even though Index Harbariorum pretty much keeps a 1 to 1 relation between herbaria and institutions, if you also add zoological and fossil collections you will surely get multiple collections per institution. Each of which not only has a specific code, but also different metatda such as address, contacts, description access information, etc

Created: 2013-12-10 16:33:52.672
Updated: 2013-12-10 16:33:52.672
[] you raise the question whether this issue relates to collection codes or institution codes.

[] do you have any comment, since you raised the initial issue? Thanks 

Comment: Markus' interpretation is correct. Suggest to park this issue for the time being, and evaluate whether information can be added at the dataset level if requested, or as a "nice to have".
Created: 2013-12-10 16:39:28.168
Updated: 2013-12-10 16:39:28.168

Comment: To me this is very much the retreat session we had about "undigitised collection metadata"
Created: 2013-12-10 17:37:28.498
Updated: 2013-12-10 17:37:28.498

Comment: High cost for relatively small benefit, and very uneven availability of such codens. Retire, at least for the moment - reopen if there is substantial benefit to be expected.
Created: 2016-09-19 16:17:34.83
Updated: 2016-09-19 16:17:34.83