New Term - projectID

[aaltenburger2]

taken from #527

• Submitter: Andreas Altenburger

• Efficacy Justification (why is this term necessary?): I work at a university museum that publishes its collections on GBIF as datasets. We constantly receive requests from contributors to the museum collection, asking to be able to track "their" contributions at the record level on GBIF. This relates to private funders such as Ocean Census (https://oceancensus.org/) or the Mohn Foundation (https://mohnfoundation.no/), governmental funding from Artsdatabanken or the Research Council of Norway, and institutional internal funding. We need to be able to attribute the specimens to their respective projects and funders.

• Demand Justification (name at least two organizations that independently need this term): Record-level attribution has been requested several times previously. See discussions
  Project Information - Darwin Core Hour Input Form 2/14/2017 11:46:27 dwc-qa#37
  tracking funding source for projects at occurrence record level dwc-qa#83
  serving datasetID for some, not all records dwc-qa#100
  ProjectIDs on individual records, rather than a dataset as a whole gbif/pipelines#836
  Option to add several projects in the Project data metadata page gbif/ipt#1780
  for more details.

• Stability Justification (what concerns are there that this might affect existing implementations?): New terms for record-level attribution are unlikely to negatively impact existing implementations because these terms would be additional, optional fields that enhance the granularity of data attribution without altering existing data structures.

• Implications for dwciri: namespace (does this change affect a dwciri term version)?: The introduction of the proposed new term does not necessitate changes to existing dwciri term versions. The new terms would be added as properties within the Darwin Core namespace but would not alter the definitions or functionalities of existing dwciri terms.

Proposed attributes of the new term:

• Term name (in lowerCamelCase for properties, UpperCamelCase for classes): projectID
• Term label (English, not normative): Project ID
• Organized in Class (e.g., Occurrence, Event, Location, Taxon): Occurence
• Definition of the term (normative): A list (concatenated and separated) of unique identifiers for the project(s) that contributed to the original dwc:Occurrence. The projectID can link multiple occurrence records associated with the same project but may be shared in
  different datasets. The nature of the association can be described in the metadata project description element.
• Usage comments (recommendations regarding content, etc., not normative): This term should be used to provide a globally unique identifier (GUID) for the project, if available. This could be a DOI, URI, or any other persistent identifier that ensures the project can be uniquely distinguished from others. The recommended best practice is to separate the values in a list with space vertical bar space ( | ).
• Examples (not normative): RCN276730; RCN276730 | Artsproject_7-24; OC202405
• Refines (identifier of the broader term this term refines; normative): NA
• Replaces (identifier of the existing term that would be deprecated and replaced by this term; normative): NA
• ABCD 2.06 (XPATH of the equivalent term in ABCD or EFG; not normative): /DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/Project/

[dshorthouse]

Examples would be best separated by ( | ) instead of semi-colons.

[aaltenburger2]

Thank you for the feedback. I would separate the projectIDs with a "|" when there are several for one occurrence. The examples are meant to show different projectIDs for different occurrences; hence, the semicolons. I have updated the text with an example showing two projectIDs to make this clearer.