-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Nested institutions in GRSciColl #285
Comments
O is used for the University of Oslo > Natural History Museum > Botanical Museum University >> Faculty >> "Department"-ish (no longer formal departments) The Natural History Museum in Oslo (NHMO) was created in 1999 (current name since 2005) (see history). Before 1999: The Norwegian university museums (and some faculties, and some institutes for biology/geography/...) are registered as separate data publishers in GBIF, however, the ROR, and Grid identifies the entire university... University >> Faculty >> Department And another challenge is that the landscape and hierarchical organisation of institutions changes. Recently many Norwegian University Colleges merged with each other and with one of the classical 4-5 national universities. Some formerly independent institutions have become level 2 faculties or maybe even level 3 departments. And some of these seem to have their institution identifiers already declared BEFORE they merged and became sub-units of other institutions. E.g. Norwegian School Of Veterinary Science ---> NMBU >> Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Many similar recent reorganisations in Tromsø... |
And I added a list of Norwegian institutions (and sub-units) holding scientific collections to your spreadsheet here: |
Hi @rukayaj @dagendresen So depending on how you would like to represent the institutions, you could have each of them represented as (separate) institutions (and mention in the description the relationship with the others) or you could merge some of them and/or add alternative codes. Of course, merging entities can quickly become quite messy so be sure that this is what you need first. I am leaving the issue open as a reminder (and use case) to explore nested entities. |
I believe we might want to keep university departments (etc) as separate data publishers (for accreditation, etc) -- and thus not to merge. However, a nested hierarchy of organizations would indeed be very useful!! (including aggregated metrics, counting of occurrences, citations, etc across all child sub-units of a parent organization). ... if we would merge all child units then at what level to stop :-) All universities in Norway are "children" organized under the Ministry of Education and Research. All public institutions are organized under the Government of Norway :-) |
It makes sense to me to merge institutions up the hierarchy until we find one of them which has a grid/ror identifier. But I think we can have the different departments as separate publishers in GBIF still - it looks like GBIF organizations/publishers are treated completely separately from GRSciColl institutions, right @ManonGros? Or maybe it's a better idea to keep the two lists (GRSciColl institutions + GBIF organizations/publishers) as similar as possible? I don't really have any strong opinions. Thanks for adding the list of institutions + identifiers, @dagendresen ! |
@dagendresen I can't promise anything but we will explore the idea. That being said, @rukayaj is correct, GrSciColl institutions and GBIF organizations/publishers are separate. Keep in mind that without any nesting system, you can already group the data and generate stats on GBIF based on:
|
I am thinking more of the stats that is presented (user-friendly) to the portal users, than stats that we at the GBIF Node CAN generate :-) (And as proposed/wished for previously -- years ago) I would prefer to link data to institutions (data publisher) using the dwc:institutionID rather than the EML (nor the institutionCode). And for specimens (occurrences) to link to collections using dwc:collectionID and not the EML nor the collectionCode. |
I meant this type of data aggregation/stats:
|
I would recommend the Natural History Museum getting its own GRID identifier and register in GRID as child organisation below the University of Oslo (UiO). That way, in a future PID graph, provenance etc. can be linked directly to the Museum (and also still to the University). |
If GRID supports parent-child hierarchy (and self-registration/curration?) maybe we do not need GrSciColl at all :-) |
I just had the exact same thought :) I wonder if GRID lets you specify that this institute holds scientific collections... I think you can use the suggest an institute button on https://www.grid.ac/institutes |
Should we try -- I can try now. I have sent a request for a GRID for the museum. Ticket #68248 |
Yes you can use the suggest button for that in their site. GRID metadata is very limited and generic so will not cover all community needs for metadata about an institution I think. The museum would be an "Archive" under GRID, with no way to specify that it holds scientific collections. |
About GRID numbers for "child"-"institutions" such as the University museumshttps://gridac.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/68248
|
We have historically used the "O" institution code and semi-recently changed this to the "NHMO" institution code. We have some datasets and data sources which still reference the old "O" code, and we would like to tidy this up where possible.
However, the Natural History Museum here is not technically an institution in itself. Our actual institution is the University of Oslo (UiO). and has e.g. a grid identifier and ror identifier. Additionally, UiO has several "child" institutions e.g. the Natural History Museum or the Department of Biosciences, which are registered as separate GBIF publishers.
What would you advise here, perhaps we should publish all datasets from these publishers with the same "uio" institution code?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: