talk · Thursday 24 September · 09:10–⁠09:25 · SAL A

Bridging the Gap: Strategies for Integrating Person Identifiers into Collection Databases

Frederik Berger · From Cabinets to Clouds - Bridging the gap between collection- and database management

Recording time 1:31:24–1:42:18Open on Vimeo ↗

Summaries and key moments are machine-produced. Check the recording for the speaker’s exact words.

The short versionWikidata's community-built person data can be used to pre-structure candidate matches, but expert judgement and institutional priorities remain essential for identifying collectors.

Overview

What this was about

Frederik Berger set out a still-conceptual strategy for linking person name strings in MfN collection data to persistent identifiers via Wikidata. About 30,000 people in Wikidata are linked to collections via property P11146, around 15,000 have Bionomia IDs and 13,500 are referenced from Entomologists of the World. MfN's own data yields about 800,000 name occurrences, 200,000 distinct strings and roughly 13,000 clusters, suggesting about 15,000 people. Only about 1.6% are currently linked to a PID in the central CMS. He compared prioritising frequent names against complex clusters, and proposed a web names directory that reconciles against the collection-related subset of Wikidata, with experts making the final decision.

Why it matters. Agent disambiguation is a major bottleneck for linking specimens. The quantified gap, prioritisation options and restricted-reconciliation idea are directly reusable by other collection-holding institutions.

Key ideas

In the room

  • No specimen exists without an agent; Wikidata can broker links between institutional databases and other collection information.
  • About 30,000 Wikidata humans are linked via 'collection items at' (P11146); about 15,000 people with Bionomia IDs and 13,500 from Entomologists of the World are also represented.
  • The MfN WikiProject 'MfN Berlin Names' (led by Sabine von Mering) lists about 1,100 people.
  • MfN name data: about 800,000 name strings from about 30 tables, deduplicated to about 200,000 and clustered into about 13,000 groups, suggesting about 15,000 people.
  • Only about 1.6% of people in the central CMS have an unambiguous PID (about 10% if distributed lists are included).
  • About 1,500 agents account for up to 90% of collection objects, so prioritising frequent names maximises impact; tackling complex clusters improves authority data quality instead.
  • Next step: a web-based names directory mapping clusters, strings, sub-collections and candidate Wikidata QIDs, reconciling only against people already linked to collections.
Jump in

Notable moments

In their words

Transcript

Automatically generated captions can contain mistakes, especially in names and technical terms. Times are relative to the room recording.

Read the transcript ↓
Loading transcript…
Programme abstract

Bridging the Gap: Strategies for Integrating Person Identifiers into Collection Databases

Frederik Berger

Unambiguous identifiers for person names are critical for research based on collection data. Every specimen in a collection is the result of human agency - through collection, preparation, description, and curation. Identifying these agents enhances data quality by referencing the source of intellectual authority, by resolving collector networks or by providing additional insights into the history of collections. While identifier management workflows have existed for decades, Wikidata has become a central broker for biodiversity-related identifiers. The introduction of the “collection items at” property (P11146) in 2022 enabled the seamless linking of collectors to holding institutions in Wikidata. In less than four years, over 47,000 items (i.e. unambiguously identified persons) have been assigned this property, showcasing a significant cross-disciplinary community effort. Despite this progress, the integration of unique identifiers into primary collection databases remains slow. This process requires deep domain knowledge, identifier management expertise, and, most crucially, significant time. This creates a fundamental bottleneck: collection curators possess the necessary knowledge and access but lack the time to prioritize integration, whereas the broader community has the capacity for disambiguation but lacks access to institutional records. This presentation will delve into the process of person name disambiguation, exploring possible solutions that can decouple the workflow and enable collections curators to benefit from community-curated databases like Wikidata. By understanding these challenges and implementing strategies for collaborative data enrichment, we can enhance our ability to leverage human agency within biodiversity collection data.

Submitted to the conference programme before the talk, so the talk itself may differ.