Should catalog numbers include the institution code or collection code?

[zygoballus]

My institution code is CMNH (for Carnegie Museum of Natural History) and my collection code is IZ (for invertebrate zoology). So far, I've been entering my catalog numbers as e.g. "CMNH-IZ-1", "CMNH-IZ-2", but I noticed that some other collections only include the collection code in their catalog numbers, or neither the institution code nor the collection code. And some include both like I do. Is there any best practice in this regard? Is it good to use a globally unique catalog number in the field or is it superfluous to include the institution code and collection code? The Darwin Core documentation just says "An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection."

[zygoballus]

Any opinions are welcome!

[mpitblado]

Hi @zygoballus,

My opinion is that it is best not to include the collection code in the catalogue number, thus keeping your data atomic (small, independent components with one function). If the three should be shown together, such as in an interface, then that interface is responsible for concatenating the institution code, collection code, and catalogue number together. The same thought process is why it is better to separate out first and last name, as opposed to having a single field, you have a lot more flexibility with it.

Additionally, separating out the institution code and collection code deprives the catalogue number of meaning. While this may sound bad, things that are meaningless don't tend to change very often, which is great for numbers used to identify things. If the name of the museum or collection changes (unlikely, but it does certainly happen), then there may be temptation down the line to come up with the new scheme, and renumber etc.