Talk:Splitting of collection specimens (Guide best practices) - Revision history

bwf>Andreas Plank: Anton Güntsch => Anton Güntsch (BGBM)

2020-06-15T10:14:37Z

Anton Güntsch => Anton Güntsch (BGBM)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 15 June 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:

	[Alex Hardisty] The original {{abbr\|DS}} and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.		[Alex Hardisty] The original {{abbr\|DS}} and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.
	: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.		: [Anton Güntsch (BGBM)] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.

	=== Q2. What happens to the NSId after the physical specimen ceases to exist? ===		=== Q2. What happens to the NSId after the physical specimen ceases to exist? ===

	[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>		[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>
	: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither {{abbr\|DwC}} nor {{abbr\|ABCD}} has this already. Will check.		: [Anton Güntsch (BGBM)] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither {{abbr\|DwC}} nor {{abbr\|ABCD}} has this already. Will check.

	=== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ===		=== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ===

	[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …		[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …
	: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.		: [Anton Güntsch (BGBM)] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>

	[[Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]		[[Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]
	[[Category: Discussion]]		[[Category: Discussion]]

bwf>Andreas Plank: +:Category: Discussion

2020-06-15T10:11:38Z

+Category: Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 15 June 2020
Line 19:		Line 19:

	[[Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]		[[Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]
			[[Category: Discussion]]

bwf>Andreas Plank: Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers => Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers

2020-06-15T09:51:46Z

Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers => Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:51, 15 June 2020
Line 18:		Line 18:
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>

	[[Category: ~~Handbook~~ for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]		[[Category: Guide for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]

bwf>Andreas Plank: use let only the questions be transcludable everything outside can evolve here further and will not be included in other pages

2020-06-15T09:07:10Z

use <onlyinclude> let only the questions be transcludable everything outside can evolve here further and will not be included in other pages

bwf>Andreas Plank: +Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers

2020-06-09T11:16:53Z

+Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 9 June 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …		[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …
	: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.		: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.

			[[Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]

bwf>Andreas Plank: removed intro conversation; +abbr

2020-06-09T11:16:14Z

removed intro conversation; +abbr

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 9 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Alert box\|content=Talk and questions from e-~~mail~~. Discussion can also evolve here}}		{{Alert box\|content=Talk and questions from e-mails. Discussion can also evolve here, you can use the <code><nowiki>:</nowiki></code> as first character for indenting texts and mark your comments by your signature <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> (becomes replaced by the Wiki)}}

	~~[Alex Hardisty] Anton~~, ~~You mentioned 3 questions~~ (~~among many I’m sure~~) ~~about specific issues in curating identifiers. I translated them for the {{abbr\|NSId~~}} ~~case and begun the answers …~~
	~~: [Anton Güntsch] For all of the cases (and more to come) we will provide RDF-encoded examples so that people know how to represent the information.~~


	== Q1. What happens to the {{abbr\|NSId}} when a physical specimen is split into parts? ==		== Q1. What happens to the {{abbr\|NSId}} when a physical specimen is split into parts? ==

	[Alex Hardisty] The original DS and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.		[Alex Hardisty] The original {{abbr\|DS}} and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.
	: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.		: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.

Line 13:		Line 9:

	[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>		[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>
	: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither DwC nor ABCD has this already. Will check.		: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither {{abbr\|DwC}} nor {{abbr\|ABCD}} has this already. Will check.

	== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ==		== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ==

bwf>Andreas Plank: Created page with "{{Alert box|content=Talk and questions from e-mail. Discussion can also evolve here}} [Alex Hardisty] Anton, You mentioned 3 questions (among many I’m sure) about specific..."

2020-06-09T09:56:03Z

Created page with "{{Alert box|content=Talk and questions from e-mail. Discussion can also evolve here}} [Alex Hardisty] Anton, You mentioned 3 questions (among many I’m sure) about specific..."

New page

{{Alert box|content=Talk and questions from e-mail. Discussion can also evolve here}}

[Alex Hardisty] Anton, You mentioned 3 questions (among many I’m sure) about specific issues in curating identifiers. I translated them for the {{abbr|NSId}} case and begun the answers …
: [Anton Güntsch] For all of the cases (and more to come) we will provide RDF-encoded examples so that people know how to represent the information.

== Q1. What happens to the {{abbr|NSId}} when a physical specimen is split into parts? ==

[Alex Hardisty] The original DS and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.
: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.

== Q2. What happens to the NSId after the physical specimen ceases to exist? ==

[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>
: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither DwC nor ABCD has this already. Will check.

== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ==

[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …
: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 15 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Alert box\|content=Talk and questions from e-mails. Discussion can also evolve here, you can use the <code><nowiki>:</nowiki></code> as first character for indenting texts and mark your comments by your signature <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> (becomes replaced by the Wiki)}}		{{Alert box\|content=Talk and questions from e-mails. Discussion can also evolve here, you can use the <code><nowiki>:</nowiki></code> as first character for indenting texts and mark your comments by your signature <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> (becomes replaced by the Wiki)}}

	== Q1. What happens to the {{abbr\|NSId}} when a physical specimen is split into parts? ==		<onlyinclude><!-- comment: let only the questions be transcludable everything outside can evolve here further and will not be included in other pages -->
			=== Q1. What happens to the {{abbr\|NSId}} when a physical specimen is split into parts? ===

	[Alex Hardisty] The original {{abbr\|DS}} and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.		[Alex Hardisty] The original {{abbr\|DS}} and NSId is retained and updated to point to each of the new parts, with a relation (see below). Each new part gets its own DS/NSId. Each new DS is linked back to its parent.
	: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.		: [Anton Güntsch] This is what we recommend as well. In addition, I think that the original specimen record needs to know its successors (and provide links to them). This might sound redundant but one cannot rely on the presence of the reverse relationship and a performant inference.

	== Q2. What happens to the NSId after the physical specimen ceases to exist? ==		=== Q2. What happens to the NSId after the physical specimen ceases to exist? ===

	[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>		[Alex Hardisty] The general approach is that once created a Digital Specimen and its corresponding NSId exists permanently. When the corresponding physical specimen ceases to exist (e.g., because it was destroyed, lost, etc.) change in status should be recorded by the insertion of a new status information element into the Digital Specimen. Possible statuses are: extant, lost, destroyed, split. <any more?>
	: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither {{abbr\|DwC}} nor {{abbr\|ABCD}} has this already. Will check.		: [Anton Güntsch] Exactly. Digital records of specimens have to be kept forever in the CMS and get a meaningful status (‘unclear‘ might be an additional one). We need to agree a controlled terminology for this and we need to find an element representing this status. I believe that neither {{abbr\|DwC}} nor {{abbr\|ABCD}} has this already. Will check.

	== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ==		=== Q3. How do I represent relationships between specimens (e.g., duplicates) in a standardized way? ===

	[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …		[Alex Hardisty] What is the list of standard relations that must be supported? isDuplicateOf, isParatypeOf, hasHolotype, …
	: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.		: [Anton Güntsch] Again, the terminology needs to be agreed/developed.
			</onlyinclude>

	[[Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]		[[Category: Handbook for CETAF Stable Identifiers]]