<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_GoBack"></a>Doug<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, GUIDs are important but again should not supplant a traditional catalog number. There are very few publishers who as yet accept GUIDs as references to material examined and until we have such a structure in place the Darwin Core triplet
of Institution code, Collection Code and catalog number (or some combination thereof) will have to suffice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is a great discussion of this going on in the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge Discourse session on converging he Extended Specimen and Digital Specimens concepts that I would encourage all of you to become involved in. The collections
community has a huge stake in any implementation of such a concept with regard to collections advocacy and attribution and it would be good to have as many voices as possible involved in these discussions. With such a system in place, individual GUIDs associated
with specimens can be tracked as can their associations to each other and all of the products created from them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://discourse.gbif.org/t/converging-digital-specimens-and-extended-specimens-towards-a-global-specification-for-data-integration/2394">https://discourse.gbif.org/t/converging-digital-specimens-and-extended-specimens-towards-a-global-specification-for-data-integration/2394</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> A : A : A :<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> V V V<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Andy Bentley<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Ichthyology Collection Manager<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">University of Kansas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Biodiversity Institute<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dyche Hall<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">1345 Jayhawk Boulevard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">USA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Tel: (785) 864-3863<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Fax: (785) 864-5335 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Email: <a href="mailto:abentley@ku.edu">abentley@ku.edu</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><a href="http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu/">http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> A : A : A :<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> V V V<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Douglas Yanega <dyanega@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:38 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu" <nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Nhcoll-l] Barcodes and accession numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p>In our insect collection management database, we try to adhere to DwC compliant fields. We assign every indivisible curatorial unit in our collection (be it pin, vial, or slide) with a GUID (globally unique) that is the primary reference point for served
data. Historical accession numbers, lot numbers, and other NON-unique codes are retained, but in a separate, secondary field used specifically for that purpose, and we only serve the contents of this field internally or upon request. I think most collections
try to follow this basic procedure, which is logical enough. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Where I see less consistency is how collections treat material bearing legacy GUIDs, or GUIDs assigned by other collections. Our database accommodates externally-generated GUIDs, to avoid pseudoreplication, but I am aware of collections where their "house
database" will (by design or by policy) NOT accommodate externally-generated GUIDs, so they may have tens of thousands of specimens bearing multiple GUIDs. This pretty much defeats the principle of a GUID being unique, and I
<b>really</b> don't like this practice. I have even seen cases where not only does a collection add a second GUID to each specimen, but they generate a complete set of data
<i>de novo</i>, including georeferences; this results in data aggregators such as GBIF containing two data points for each specimen, often mapping to slightly different coordinates, and appearing to represent two specimens.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Peace,<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=04%7C01%7Cabentley%40ku.edu%7C31a9d75c640e435fce0108d8d8eaf5c2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C1%7C637497850957153990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=zFjjDRl%2BOjxHO7sU6ttaP5MI7J1G912Akw5RYkMbVHc%3D&reserved=0">https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>