[tdwg-ncd] Re: Terminology version 2

[Markus Döring]

Hi,
Id like to reformulate some queries cause they seem to be targeted at  
specimens (unit level) rather than collections.
I think all queries are good real world use cases, but to be honest I  
think most of them are way too complex to be answered by NCD datasets.
This is mostly due to the lack of standardised keywords (India, SE  
Asia, fallout area of cherynoble) but also because of too detailed  
questions (species names like 'bufo bufo' are unlikely to be listed  
for collections).

But one lesson learned here is again the need for keyword  
standardisation.
We should at least recommend ISO country codes or kind of enforce  
them through the editor. Not sure if NCD should mandate this cause  
you really might want to use different region schemas.

Markus


> Here are some sample queries to consider, and I'm sure you have  
> others in mind:
>  - All the birds from India
all collections having birds from india

> - All the instances of Bufo bufo resources in a single  
> institution's holdings
all collections of the institution X that have specimens of Bufo bufo  
(what is a resource ???)

> - All specimens collected in the fall-out area within a year after  
> the Cherynoble disaster
all collections that have specimens collected in the fall-out area  
within a year after the Cherynoble disaster

> - Specimens from SE Asia
all collections that have specimens from SE Asia

> - Endangered species, worldwide
all collections that have worldwide endagered species

> - All the herbarium collections in Europe
> - All the herbarium and insect collections in Africa
> - Published and unpublished resources relating to Darwin's collections
> - Molecular collections available for destructive analysis
> - Living collections of plants and animals
> - Living collections for which observation of mating displays exists
>
>
> I'm hoping we can come to a conclusion on this soon, to give Ruud  
> and Wouter what they need to keep moving on their work, and Connie  
> what she needs towards documentation.
>
> Best wishes to all!
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering at bgbm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: Constance Rinaldo; Neil Thomson; Butler, Carol;  
> Guenter.Waibel at rlg.org; Barbara Mathe; Doug Holland; Natural  
> Collections Descriptions mailing list; Wouter Addink; Ruud Altenburg
> Subject: Re: Terminology version 2
>
> Hi,
> I've been talking to Anton Güntsch about the use of NCD and the
> different proposals about controlled keywords.
> We came to the conclusions that from an biological point of view we
> would need an easy way to enter and extract at least the information
> which collection is a herbarium, zoo, garden, aquarium, mineral
> collection.
> Some terms are specialisations of broader terms we had (herbarium <
> specimen collection). We can model this in the ontology so that
> applications know that every herbarium is also a specimen collection
> (or "dead" collection as opposed to living collection?) and simply
> keep all terms in the schema list. Would that be an option? We will
> have all the broad terms and some frequently occuring
> specialisations. for example:
>
> archive
> library
> facsimile
> digital data   # what exactly is this? arent observations also data,
> maybe just a specialisation
> observation
> specimen
>    - herbarium
>    - nat.hist.collection   # or how you call those dead animal
> collections in general?
> living collection
>    - garden
>    - zoo
>    - aquarium
>
>
>
> The other option to know whether a collection is a herbarium is to
> say its a specimen collection and have a taxonomic indication of
> "plants". For this we would need a short list of very broad taxonomic
> terms. I think that would be very useful anyways. something along the
> lines of plants, animals, fungus, bacteria, viruses and minerals. And
> of course additionally the free taxonomic keywords list. Does this
> sound strange from a librarian point of view?
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Döring, Markus wrote:
>
>> I do like the idea of having a very short high level list for a first
>> categorisation. I would like to add "Living collection" and maybe
>> also "DNA
>> samples" or more generic "molecular samples" to the list though. So
>> we have
>> dead specimens, living beings and some molecular (?) samples like
>> DNA, cell
>> culture, proteins and alike. Well, cell cultures are not really
>> molecular
>> samples. Anyone with a better term for this?
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> Am 09.07.2007 15:17 Uhr schrieb "Constance Rinaldo" unter
>> <crinaldo at oeb.harvard.edu>:
>>
>>> Have we absolutely agreed to merge ctype and pfocus?  I still think
>>> there is value in keeping them separate.  Carol had an idea about
>>> Ctype having a few, high-level choices with pfocus as a modifier.
>>> The two fields really are different, although it is easy to see how
>>> they can be a bit confusing.  If we offer the right choices, though,
>>> it will not be so confusing.  Carol suggested to me: <ctype> "  
>>> should
>>> become a very short, high level list - - only having: Archive,
>>> Library, specimen/Object, Observation, Data/Information,
>>> Representation/Facsimilie.  Then <pFocus> would be something of a
>>> modifier. "
>>>
>>> Can we still talk about this?  I am not convinced that merging them
>>> is the best idea. It seems even more confusing to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************
>>> Constance Rinaldo, Librarian of the Ernst Mayr Library
>>> Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
>>> 26 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA  02138
>>> voice: 617-495-4576; fax: 617-496-6838
>>> email: crinaldo at fas.harvard.edu
>>> http://library.mcz.harvard.edu
>>> ************************************************************
>>> "To a person uninstructed in natural history, his country or seaside
>>> stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with wonderful works of
>>> art, nine-tenths of which have their faces turned to the wall"  
>>> Thomas
>>> Henry Huxley
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Neil Thomson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Carol,
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy that we have the right elements now and a good selection
>>>> of terms within each.
>>>>
>>>> Just one comment on the collectionType terms - since they refer to
>>>> collections, then maybe some of them should be in the plural? For
>>>> example, image should be images. This wouldn't apply to all, for
>>>> example event and expedition should remain as they are.
>>>>
>>>> Any other views?
>>>>
>>>> With thanks,
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>> From: Butler, Carol [mailto:ButlerCR at si.edu]
>>>> Sent: 06 July 2007 19:04
>>>> To: Neil Thomson; Guenter.Waibel at rlg.org; Markus Döring; Barbara
>>>> Mathe; Constance Rinaldo; Doug Holland; Wouter Addink; Ruud
>>>> Altenburg
>>>> Subject: Terminology version 2
>>>> Importance: High
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comments.  I've attached version 2.  You'll see
>>>> that it collapses <primaryFocus> into <collectionType> (which we
>>>> had in the past called "collection class").  I included examples
>>>> for the terms that correspond to this revised element.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As we're on a time schedule and need to agree on the property/
>>>> elements so that Ruud and Wouter can proceed, would you please send
>>>> me your final comments on 1) the Property Comment definitions, and
>>>> 2) updated Terms, no later than the end of your day on Monday, July
>>>> 9th? My recollection is that we needed to complete this review by
>>>> July 10th.   I expect we may want to tune the term definitions and
>>>> examples a bit, which Neil tells me can have a bit more time as
>>>> long as the elements themselves are agreed.  If I don't hear from
>>>> you, I'll conclude that you don't have comments or edits on this
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've also sent this to our wiki.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> <NCD terms version 3_July11.xls>