Protistan plankton time series from the northern Salish Sea and Central Coast, British Columbia, Canada

[timvdstap]

@JessyBarrette
@jdelbel

Hey Justin, I just noticed that this record is sitting in the 'submitted' phase -- I'm sorry I didn't have a look at it yet! I think a new issue wasn't created as it was a modifications of an existing, published record. I should be able to review it this week and get back to you with any comments and/or suggestions!

Best Practices Checklist

In General

• No previous versions of this metadata record exist (eg for earlier versions of the data, if so update that record rather than creating a new one)

Data Identification

Dataset title:

• No version information in the title
• Frontloaded (with the most important information first)
• Include the geographical region the data apply to
• Short – aim for 60 characters including spaces
• Does not include acronyms – put these in the keywords
• Does not include the word “dataset”
• Time series datasets should include “time series” at the end of the title

Abstract

• Abbreviations have been expanded upon at first mention
• Abstract describes how, when, what, where, why of data collection and is limited to no more than 500 words

DOI

• A DOI has been drafted for this record
• DOI has been updated via the form after review and changes to record
• DOI has been manually edited on datacite fabrica
• DOI status has been changed from Draft to Findable

Spatial

• Ensure that Depth or Height Positive is correctly selected

Contact

• ROR and ORCID(s) are included and linked properly where applicable
• For datasets where DFO is a partner, ensure 'parent' ROR is added (https://ror.org/02qa1x782). DFO 'child' organizations (i.e. CHS) and their ROR are optional.
• Include Hakai Institute as Publisher and include [email protected] as email
• Make sure email address is provided if the role is 'Metadata Custodian' or 'Point of Contact'
• Add contact affiliation where known including ROR
• If resource is (partially) generated by Hakai researchers, include 'Tula Foundation' (with associated ROR) with 'Funder' role. Be sure to uncheck 'include in citation' for Tula Foundation.

Resources

• Resource links go to specific dataset download (not generic platform like waterproperties.ca)
• Readme, changelog, data dictionary, protocols included in data-package (for tabular text based data)
• An archive folder, or other means, for older data versions is included in the data package if the version is not 1.0
• Links work
• All files in the data package can be opened and are not corrupt
• No executable files in the data package. Files should be open formats and standards (.csv, .txt for example)

[jdelbel]

Hi Tim, No worries. I actually just submitted recently. It is a new record - no previous record exists on the Hakai metadata record, despite it being on OBIS prior to the recent update. J

…

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:33 AM timvdstap ***@***.***> wrote: @JessyBarrette <https://github.com/JessyBarrette> @jdelbel <https://github.com/jdelbel> Hey Justin, I just noticed that this record <https://cioos-siooc.github.io/metadata-entry-form/#/en/hakai/7U7b8oPpeTN6gjvXlUCTGJr5pga2/-Nh8VlPQ_m681tso87Gd> is sitting in the 'submitted' phase -- I'm sorry I didn't have a look at it yet! I think a new issue wasn't created as it was a modifications of an existing, published record. I should be able to review it this week and get back to you with any comments and/or suggestions! Best Practices Checklist In General - No previous versions of this metadata record exist (eg for earlier versions of the data, if so update that record rather than creating a new one) Data Identification Dataset title: - No version information in the title - Frontloaded (with the most important information first) - Include the geographical region the data apply to - Short – aim for 60 characters including spaces - Does not include acronyms – put these in the keywords - Does not include the word “dataset” - Time series datasets should include “time series” at the end of the title Abstract - Abbreviations have been expanded upon at first mention - Abstract describes how, when, what, where, why of data collection and is limited to no more than 500 words DOI - A DOI has been drafted for this record - DOI has been updated via the form after review and changes to record - DOI has been manually edited on datacite fabrica - DOI status has been changed from Draft to Findable Spatial - Ensure that Depth or Height Positive is correctly selected Contact - ROR and ORCID(s) are included and linked properly where applicable - For datasets where DFO is a partner, ensure 'parent' ROR is added ( https://ror.org/02qa1x782). DFO 'child' organizations (i.e. CHS) and their ROR are optional. - Include Hakai Institute as Publisher and include ***@***.*** as email - Make sure email address is provided if the role is 'Metadata Custodian' or 'Point of Contact' - Add contact affiliation where known including ROR - If resource is (partially) generated by Hakai researchers, include 'Tula Foundation' (with associated ROR) with 'Funder' role. Be sure to uncheck 'include in citation' for Tula Foundation. Resources - Resource links go to specific dataset download (not generic platform like waterproperties.ca) - Readme, changelog, data dictionary, protocols included in data-package (for tabular text based data) - An archive folder, or other means, for older data versions is included in the data package if the version is *not* 1.0 - Links work - All files in the data package can be opened and are not corrupt - No executable files in the data package. Files should be open formats and standards (.csv, .txt for example) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#93>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJPW44UR6WUSQMV4L5QLXWDZLQNFJAVCNFSM6AAAAABKTKBBQ6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGM4TQNZYGEYDONA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Justin Del Bel Belluz, MSc. Research Scientist - Bio-Optical Oceanography Hakai Institute 100 - 1002 Wharf Street Victoria, BC Canada V8W 1T4 www.hakai.org

[timvdstap]

That's good to know, thanks Justin! @JessyBarrette we have to check why no issue was generated following this record submission, and also whether we've missed out on any others in the meantime.

[JessyBarrette]

yeah good point

[timvdstap]

Hey @jdelbel -- nice record! Some thoughts, suggestions, comments:

• If the underlying data are publicly available, you can include the data when the data was published. If this version (1.4) was the initial publication of the data, then perhaps I'd argue that youre 'revision date' should instead be your 'publication date'.

• Remove role "Publisher" from your contact details

• Does Drew not have an ORCID? Can strongly recommend that they create an ORCID.

• Include 'Hakai Institute' separately as contact, with role "Publisher".

• Include 'Tula Foundation' separately as contact, with role "Funder". Do not include in citation.

• I think a lot of your Primary Resources should be included under Lineage - this section describes any documents, sources or processing steps used to achieve your processed data. Do you have (a) link(s) to eg. a GitHub repository (or GitHub Release) that includes all the data? @JessyBarrette would you agree that methods papers and identification keys/guidelines are best included under Lineage (vs. Related Works). This item has made me realized we need to update our guidance text for Primary Resources.

• The empty field in 'Lineage' currently can be removed.

• Do the records in OBIS/GBIF contain the full dataset? If not, I would recommend using 'Has Part Of' to indicate that only a subset of the data is standardized to DwC. If full dataset, perhaps a better relationship would be "Is Original Form Of" @JessyBarrette do you have any thoughts on this?

[jdelbel]

Thanks Tim.

I am confused on point #1 - The original dataset was published on OBIS on 2021-06-21. I recently revised the dataset adding more stations and years of data, which is the current revision date (v1.4, 2024-06-17). Are you saying I should use the original publication data (2021-06-21) here instead?

I moved my primary resources to lineage, but am unclear if they are added correctly. Please advise. The "scope" description and options are a bit confusing as the methods and taxonomic key documents are not "datasets".

I do not have a Github repository that includes all of the data.

[timvdstap]

I am confused on point #1 - The original dataset was published on OBIS on 2021-06-21. I recently revised the dataset adding more stations and years of data, which is the current revision date (v1.4, 2024-06-17). Are you saying I should use the original publication data (2021-06-21) here instead?

My apologies - I had forgotten that the initial dataset was already previously published on OBIS. In that case, you can keep it the way it is or include the date for the original dataset publication under 'date published'. The revised data should be the one showing up in the citation (which is currently the case).

Another note:

• Currently Hakai Institute is included within the 'body' of your citation, because you have also selected the role of 'Data Owner'. This is not necessarily wrong, but I just want to check whether you want the institute included in the citation. For example, compare:

to

In the second screenshot, I have created a separate entry for 'Hakai Institute' with role: Data Owner, but not having it appear in the citation. It's a bit cumbersome I agree, but that's the current workaround. Let me know if that's what you prefer.

• You'll need to include a link to a primary resource. Right now you have 'Related Works' but don't specify the resource that they're in relation too (which would be the primary resource). If there is no 'full dataset' available, or if this metadata record is specific to the standardized data on OBIS, then I would include that URL as Primary Resource. The GBIF URL would then have as relationship type: 'Is Identical To'. Let me know if that makes sense.

I agree that the Lineage section is slightly confusing and is in need of improved documentation perhaps. I think selecting 'Dataset' as scope is not necessarily wrong, as applying the taxonomic keys in the processing results in the dataset. However I will create a separate ticket for this issue to discuss and get back to you. Feel free to chime in / keep track: https://github.com/HakaiInstitute/hakai-data/issues/186

[jdelbel]

Thanks Tim. that all sounds good.

I added the date published.

Removed Hakai from the reference.

Put the OBIS URL as the primary resource, removed it from the related works and put 'Is Identitical To' for GBIF. Generally, I push to OBIS when I have completed years/projects and the OBIS standardization is the best output. As such, I think it's good/correct to use this as the primary resource.

Sounds good about lineage. I'm likely just not familiar with the accepted terminology around this.

I think I got everything, but let me know if there is anything else.

[JessyBarrette]

On a related note it would maybe be good for you to host your code used to convert to OBIS format from your original format within a GitHub repository. Not required but it's a good practice

[timvdstap]

Put the OBIS URL as the primary resource, removed it from the related works and put 'Is Identitical To' for GBIF. Generally, I push to OBIS when I have completed years/projects and the OBIS standardization is the best output. As such, I think it's good/correct to use this as the primary resource.

Sounds good @jdelbel - I think that for now this will work just fine! Just as an FYI, and as an extention to Jessy's comment above - wherever possible we want to link external data/metadata in different repositories back to records in the Hakai Catalogue so that we can have an accurate list of Hakai holdings, if - for whatever reason - the location of external data holdings changes. This way we can appropriately represent ownership and credit. What this means is that current preferred practice is that Hakai-owned data, along with any documentation and scripts, are stored in an institutional-level repository (such as GitHub). So in the event that you do create a GitHub repository to store your code, data and documentation -- which would be recommended especially given the ongoing timeseries nature of this record -- we can modify your Primary Resource to point to the GitHub repository/release, and add the URL to OBIS as a Related Works.

Sounds good about lineage. I'm likely just not familiar with the accepted terminology around this.

No worries, I myself think it's a tricky concept and something that has only recently been implemented in the metadata form. In your case, entries 2 through 5 appear to be related to the detection step in this workflow, so should be entered as the processing steps / methods under the first entry, rather than as separate Lineage entries.

[timvdstap]

No worries, I myself think it's a tricky concept and something that has only recently been implemented in the metadata form. In your case, entries 2 through 5 appear to be related to the detection step in this workflow, so should be entered as the processing steps / methods under the first entry, rather than as separate Lineage entries.

I can make this change for you btw if you like/agree with this approach @jdelbel -- I think it's the final piece of this puzzle before the record can be published :)

[timvdstap]

Hey @jdelbel just pinging you to see if you're OK with the approach suggested above regarding the processing steps/methods. Link to your record submission is here.

[jdelbel]

@timvdstap Sorry Tim, I got pulled away with GEM work and then holiday. That sounds good to me and if you can make the change the would be awesome. Let me know if this is still possible.

I can definitely publish my scripts via GitHub. I will need to do some work to clean everything up and provide proper documentation. I may have some questions around how to best set up the repository for public viewership. Unfortunately, this will need to wait until early October following the GEM workshop.

[timvdstap]

Hey @jdelbel I've made those changes to the Lineage section, let me know what you think: https://hakaiinstitute.github.io/hakai-metadata-entry-form/#/en/hakai/7U7b8oPpeTN6gjvXlUCTGJr5pga2/-Nh8VlPQ_m681tso87Gd.

I've also made 2 slight changes to the Contact section:

• I created 2 separate entries for the 'Hakai Institute' as contact. For one, Hakai Institute is listed as 'Data Owner' but will not appear in the citation. For the other, Hakai Institute is listed as Publisher, and included in the citation. This is the workaround we currently have for ensuring Hakai Institute is listed as publishing organization without being included in the list of authors.
• I added Drew's email as their role is a 'Point of Contact'.

If you agree with these changes then I think we can go ahead with publishing this record. Moving forward, ideally we're looking for the Primary Resource to link to the full data package (preferrably on GitHub) - should any (subset of the) data also be published on a global repository, such as OBIS / GBIF in this case, then that would be added as Related Work. This way we would always have a copy of the data package in our institutional data repository. Should you create a data package and include it in a GitHub repository down the road we can update the record accordingly.

[jdelbel]

I changed the citation order to Wiley being second in the citation. Otherwise, looks great to me.

100% on the GitHub data package. I will work on this.

[timvdstap]

Sounds good - I have updated the record in DataCite and published the record to the catalogue. Should show up there within 24 hours, at which point I'll close this issue :)

[timvdstap]

Record published in the catalogue: https://doi.org/10.21966/jv5k-3k59