New Term - fundingBodyID

[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. Current users and systems can continue to operate without adopting these new terms immediately, allowing for a gradual integration. Moreover, these terms are designed to be backward-compatible, ensuring that they do not disrupt existing workflows or data integrity. The addition of these terms would primarily provide a means for more detailed tracking and reporting, which is a growing requirement from funders and contributors. This enhancement would improve the transparency and traceability of data contributions without imposing changes on those who do not require this level of detail.
• 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 term would be added as property within the Darwin Core namespace but would not alter the definitions or functionalities of existing dwciri terms. It is designed to be complementary and to integrate seamlessly with the current structure, ensuring that it does not disrupt existing implementations.

Proposed attributes of the new term:

• Term name (in lowerCamelCase for properties, UpperCamelCase for classes): fundingBodyID
• Term label (English, not normative): Funding Body ID
• Organized in Class (e.g., Occurrence, Event, Location, Taxon): Occurence
• Definition of the term (normative): A unique identifier for the funding organization or agency that supported the project.
• Usage comments (recommendations regarding content, etc., not normative): Provide a unique identifier for the funding body, such as an identifier used in governmental or international databases. If no official identifier exists, use a persistent and unique identifier within your organization or dataset. The recommended best practice is to separate the values in a list with space vertical bar space ( | ).
• Examples (not normative): https://ror.org/00epmv149; https://ror.org/00epmv149 | https://ror.org/04jnzhb65; https://ror.org/05wszs827
• 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/Metadata/Owners/Owner/Organisation/ID this is not a perfect fit as the funding body is not necessarily the owner

[dshorthouse]

Examples would be best separated by ( | ) instead of semicolons.

[aaltenburger2]

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