CollectionObjectCitation records currently are limited to recording the specific bibliographic details of a citation of a Collection Object record, with the only field for non-bibliographic information being a free text Remarks field. Citations of collection objects are more than just bibliographic data, though. Citations are essentially links between the specimen and a diverse array of published data about the specimen. For tracking the use and impact of their specimens, and ultimately “extending the specimen”, collections may want to categorize the way in which material from the collection was used in the ReferenceWork in addition to the kind of data generated from that use.
Field
Type
Length
Description
FigureNumber
java.lang.String
50
Figure Number
IsFigured
java.lang.Boolean
Is Figured
PageNumber
java.lang.String
50
Page Number
PlateNumber
java.lang.String
50
Plate Number
Remarks
text
4096
Additional Comments.
There is no way to do this in Specify at present, in part due to the limited number and limited length of these fields, which makes co-opting them infeasible.
For example, there are many papers that cite specimens in aggregate as part of a large dataset just as occurrences. Sometimes, these occurrences are figured graphically as dots on a map. In other cases, a specimen could be the subject of a whole paper, with anatomical dissections illustrated in multiple figures, DNA sequenced, tables of measurements, etc. Others still use specimens, but fail to cite them by number at all, and so the way in which the specimen is used might best be recorded in the database so that future collection users understand why that ReferenceWork is included as a citation of a CO at all.
I think adding 10 java.lang.String with length 50 and 15 java.lang.Boolean fields would be enough for most collections to add relevant structured data to the CollectionObjectCitation table. I can’t think of a reason why more integer fields would be necessary, but perhaps other collections might have a use for them.
Ultimately, there may need to be some sort of ontology created for this kind of citation annotation in DarwinCore, but in the mean time, adding the ability to record additional data on how a ReferenceWork used a CO would be much appreciated!
Thank you for making this feature request! I’ve opened a new issue for this on GitHub:
If any other collections are interested in this request or need adjustments or additional fields, please let us know, and we can incorporate them when this is implemented!