You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We occasionally have used dwc:collectionCode for datasets from the private sector and for e.g. observation datasets which are not actually proper scientific collections. An example is https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1563639254
This seems to be permitted in the dwc term definition, but of course it's not appropriate to add these collection codes and institute codes to GrSciColl. However, it's also not ideal for these records to be flagged in the GBIF portal as having an issue.
Is there a convention we can follow to exclude those records/datasets from the matching algorithm, or is this perhaps not something to worry about too much?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
rukayaj
changed the title
Collection codes for non-research institutions
Collection codes for non-research institutions in GRSciColl
Jan 19, 2021
Hi @rukayaj, there are two ways to avoid these flags:
One is to remove the collections and institution codes all together for those records.
The other is to have corresponding entries in GrSciColl.
We don't have any problem with "Observation" collections (they are still scientific collections) so you are very welcome to create entries for those.
But unless you would like those records to be linked to GrSciColl, you don't have to worry too much about these flags. We are still working on the communication around GrSciColl and the occurrence matching. Suggestions are welcome!
We occasionally have used dwc:collectionCode for datasets from the private sector and for e.g. observation datasets which are not actually proper scientific collections. An example is https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1563639254
This seems to be permitted in the dwc term definition, but of course it's not appropriate to add these collection codes and institute codes to GrSciColl. However, it's also not ideal for these records to be flagged in the GBIF portal as having an issue.
Is there a convention we can follow to exclude those records/datasets from the matching algorithm, or is this perhaps not something to worry about too much?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: