[tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship

[John R. WIECZOREK]

Interesting that NCD doesn't cover this either at the level of
Collections. Perhaps it is less of an issue at the level of whole
collections where ownership may be mixed.

Is there any reason that dc:rights and dc:rightsHolder can't cover the
need expressed here?

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Lynn Kutner<Lynn_Kutner at natureserve.org> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to have separate "ownership" and "custodian" terms.
>
> As custodians, we provide data to GBIF on behalf of our network of member programs.
>
> This could become complicated, however, because some of those member program are themselves custodians of data that is owned by others.
>
> Lynn
>
>
> Lynn Kutner
> NatureServe
> phone: (703) 797-4804
> email:  lynn_kutner at natureserve.org
> http://www.natureserve.org/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:24 PM
> To: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
>
> This Darwin Core Issue
> (http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=34) is being
> brought into this forum for further discussion in the hopes of a
> definitive recommendation.
>
> ==New Term Recommendation==
> Submitter:Ann Hitchcock
>
> Justification: The evolution, from 2003 to the present, of the
> term "Institution Code" has resulted in a change from property ownership
> ("the institution to which the collection belongs") to administrative or
> management responsibility ("the institution administering the collection
> or data set").  We need to be able to separately identify the owning
> institution when that institution differs from the managing institution.
> Such a situation occurs when the owning party lends the collection to a
> repository for long-term management.  The catalog numbers that both
> institutions may assign to the same specimen are addressed by the Catalog
> Number and "Other Catalog Numbers," but property ownership is not
> addressed.
>
> Definition:  The name (or acronym) in use by the owner of the collection
> or data set if different from the InstituionCode.
>
> Comment:Examples: "NPS", "INBio". For discussion see
> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence
>
> Refines:InstitutionCode
>
> Has Domain:http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence
>
> Has Range:
>
> Replaces:
>
> ABCD 2.06:DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SourceInstitutionID
>
> Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco, Today (3 hours ago)
> Interesting. Do you think that dc:rights
> (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dcterms:rights) and dc:rightsHolder
> (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dcterms:rightsHolder) might
> fulfill the needs
> you are recommending?
> Status: Accepted
> Labels: Priority-Medium Milestone-Release1.0
> Delete comment Comment 2 by ann_hitc... at nps.gov, Today (14 minutes ago)
> "Rights" and "Rights Holder" do address part of the issue, especially
> if a second
> example on "Rights" could be given that refers to physical property in
> addition to
> intellectual property.  For example "Specimens are U.S. Government Property."
> Although these definitions are helpful, they still do not address the
> issue that the
> occurrence of the specimens or data set may be recorded in both the
> collection of
> the institution with custody and the collection of the institution
> with ownership.
>
> Perhaps the term "administering" in the definition for Institution
> Code should be
> replaced with "with custody of" and the proposed definition for
> Institution Code
> should be bifurcated as follows:
>
> InstitutionOwnership Code:  The name (or acronym) in use by the
> institution that
> owns the collection or data set in which the Occurrence is recorded.
>
> InstitutionCustody Code:  The name (or acronym) in use by the institution with
> custody of the collection or data set in which the Occurrence is recorded, if
> different from the InstitutionOwnership Code.
>
>
> Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (moments ago)
> Since this has moved into the realm of discussion and away from a
> definitive recommendation, I need to move it to the tdwg-content list
> for open discussion. If you have not yet joined that list, please do
> so to continue the conversation there in an open forum.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>