Added by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 7 years ago.
Updated about 6 years ago.
IPNI has fairly complex model compared to other databases. Is there a specific reason for this complexity, something that we should also implement into the registry?
Also compare IPNI with data base schemes of other registries like
- Zoobank: is based on the GNUB, see #6012 for details.
- Target version set to Technical planning completed
- Description updated (diff)
- Related to task #6012: Kompatibility Check with GNA added
Complexity is due to the the revisioning and track of all changes (what, when, whom).
The data model is unknown. At IUBS, Dec. 2015 the databases of Kew (including Registration) have been introduced without mentioning any model detail. Henning will contact the contributor of the talk.
- Status changed from New to Feedback
- Assignee set to Wolf-Henning Kusber
I think we can close this ticket since we are sure about our data model. From my side there is no need to compare the cdm with other systems.
What do you think?
- Status changed from Feedback to Closed
With respect to IPNI we are interested in their NomenclaturalNames author data and in giving feedback to them.
As discussed in BDI we will not synchronize our data with IPNI. I.e. We take a record (version, subversion, date as is) for our PhycoBank entry.
So data model comparison is not necessary and the ticket can be closed.
Also available in: Atom