Hi Jonathan

(adding GBIF helpdesk to the CC)

 

This is just a quick answer which I expect will result in follow up questions.

 

In terms of citation, we use a DOI to identify the concept of a dataset, not the specific version. E.g. https://doi.org/10.15468/cup0nk

If you start deleting copies of data (e.g. a background housekeeping task) what will break are links to the downloads in the IPT pages.  https://ipt.huh.harvard.edu/ipt/resource?r=huh_all_records&v=1.3

This may or may not be considered a problem for you.

 

I think others might have contacted you about suggestions for improving the dataset titles being used but if not I would suggest considering correctly formatted titles as they are used in  many places (https://www.gbif.org/dataset/4e4f97d2-4670-4b24-b982-261e0a450faf).

 

I hope this helps as a start,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

From: IPT <ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org> on behalf of "Kennedy, Jonathan" <jonathan_kennedy@harvard.edu>
Date: Monday, 18 February 2019 at 18.31
To: "ipt@lists.gbif.org" <ipt@lists.gbif.org>
Subject: [IPT] Daily feeds and archive history

 

Hi All,

 

I am finishing an upgrade to the Harvard University Herbaria IPT instance and have configured our feeds for daily auto-publish. The HUH has invested in a mass digitization workflow and we are currently creating ~20,000 new vascular records per month (with minimal data), so we do have new records on a daily basis. However, our DwC archives are fairly large (100MB+), so we can’t keep the daily archive history. I am looking for guidance on how it will work with GBIF dataset citation if we do not preserve each daily archive. It seems problematic if a version of our dataset is used and cited but cannot be reconstructed.

 

Best regards,

Jonathan A. Kennedy

Director of Biodiversity Informatics

Harvard University Herbaria,

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology

_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt