University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

If we are ever going to link biodiversity data together we need to have
some way of ensuring persistent links between digital records. This
isn\'t going to happen unless people take persistent identifiers
seriously.  
  
I\'ve been trying to [link specimen codes in publications to
GBIF](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2012/02/linking-gbif-and-biodiversity-heritage.html),
with some success, so imagine my horror when it started to fall apart.
For example, I recent added this paper to BioStor:  
  

> A remarkable new asterophryine microhylid frog from the mountains of
> New Guinea. Memoirs of The Queensland Museum 37: 281-286 (1994)
> <http://biostor.org/reference/105389>

  
This paper describes a new frog (i\>Asterophrys leucopus) from New
Guinea, and BioStor has extracted the specimen code **QM J58650** (where
\"QM\" is the abbreviation for Queensland Museum), which according to
the local copy of GBIF data that I have, corresponds to
<http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/363089399/>. Unfortunately, if you
click on that link GBIF denies all knowledge (you get bounced to the
search page). After a bit of digging I discover that specimen is now in
GBIF as <http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/478001337/>. At some point
GBIF has updated its data and the old occurrenceID for QM J58650
(363089399) has been deleted. Noooo!  
  
Looking at the old record I have there is an additional identifier:  

    urn:catalog:QM: Herpetology:J58650

  
This is a URN, and it\'s (a) unresolvable and (b) invalid as it contains
a space. This is why URNs are useless. There\'s no expectation they will
be resolvable hence there\'s no incentive to make sure they are correct.
It\'s as much use as writing software code but not bothering to run it
(because surely it will work, no?).  
  
The GBIF record <http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/478001337/> contains a
UUID as an alternative identifier:  

    bc58ce6b-3cc3-459a-9f5b-4a70a026afbe

  
If you Google this you discover a record in the Atlas of Living
Australia
<http://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/bc58ce6b-3cc3-459a-9f5b-4a70a026afbe>,
which also lists the URN from the now deleted GBIF record
<http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/363089399/>.  
  
I\'m guessing that at some point the OZCAM data provided to GBIF was
updated and instead of updating data for existing occurrenceIDs the old
ones were deleted and new ones created (possibly because OZCAM switched
from URNs to UUIDs as alternative identifiers). Whatever the reason, I
will now need to get a new copy of GBIF occurrence data and repeat the
linking process. Sigh.  
  
If we are ever going to deliver on the promise of linking biodiversity
data together we need to take identifiers seriously. Meantime I need to
think about mechanisms to handle links that disappear on a whim.  
  


If we are ever going to link biodiversity data together we need to have some way of ensuring persistent links between digital records. This isn't going to happen unless people take persistent identifiers seriously.I've been trying to link specimen codes in publications to GBIF, with some success, so imagine my horror when it started to fall apart.

Publicaciones de Rogue Scholar

Dear GBIF, please stop changing occurrenceIDs!