<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Although abundance is not “evidence of an occurrence in nature” it is “information pertaining to evidence”, isn’t it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert Guralnick<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> Donald Hobern [GBIF]<br><b>Cc:</b> TDWG Content Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> I agree with Donald here regarding the need for Abundance, but am, to be honest, not quite I understand (or agree) with the logic of the proposal. Abundance is listed as a property of an occurrence, and I wonder if that make sense given the class definition "The category of information pertaining to evidence of an occurrence in nature, in a collection, or in a dataset (specimen, observation, etc.)" Is abundance "evidence of an occurrence in nature". To me, abundance is a property of a survey and its associated methodology and is based on multiple occurrences that come from a sample and a definition of extent. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> It seems to me to be a bad fit to scrunch abundance into the occurrence class. I recognize that it might not quite fit anywhere in DwC yet. Wouldn't it be better to wait to see if materialSample is ratified as a class within the Darwin Core?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best, Rob<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <<a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org" target="_blank">dhobern@gbif.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks, John.<br><br>You are correct. I think though that abundance is such a commonly needed<br>property that it would be a mistake not to make it work easily even in<br>Simple Darwin Core.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Donald<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - <a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org">dhobern@gbif.org</a><br>Global Biodiversity Information Facility <a href="http://www.gbif.org/" target="_blank">http://www.gbif.org/</a><br>GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark<br>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B45%203532%201471">+45 3532 1471</a> Mob: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201471">+45 2875 1471</a> Fax: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201480">+45 2875 1480</a><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>From: <a href="mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com">gtuco.btuco@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com">gtuco.btuco@gmail.com</a>] On Behalf Of John<br>Wieczorek<br>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:48 PM<br>To: Donald Hobern [GBIF]<br>Cc: <a href="mailto:aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be">aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be</a>; TDWG Content Mailing List<br>Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance,<br>abundanceAsPercent<br><br>Could every concept of abundance be captured in a combination of abundance,<br>abundanceUnit, abundanceMethod?<br><br>If so, is there justification for creating new terms at all if the concepts<br>can be captured in MeasurentsOrFacts<br>(<a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#measureindex" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#measureindex</a>), which have the<br>following properties?<br><br>measurementType<br>measurementValue<br>measurementAccuracy<br>measurementUnit<br>measurementDeterminedDate<br>measurementDeterminedBy<br>measurementMethod<br>measurementRemarks<br><br>The only drawback I can see is that with MeasurementOrFacts you could not<br>share the abunance information in Simple Darwin Core. To understand why, see<br><a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules</a>.<br><br><br>On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <<a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org">dhobern@gbif.org</a>><br>wrote:<br>> Thanks - I think I too have missed something. If we want to make<br>> these terms usable, there needs to be a simple way to get numbers out<br>> of records that can be compared with one another where sampling<br>> methods allow such comparisons. The suggested plain text examples for<br>> Abundance don't make this possible. Forcing normalisation into<br>> percentages seems an unnecessary hurdle and risks encouraging the<br>> impression that number of ducks on a reservoir is somehow comparable<br>> with percentage dry mass, proportional expression of CO1 for a<br>> particular species in an ecogenomics sample, or whatever.<br>><br>> I would much rather we ensured we had a standard, preferred field<br>> which the data publisher can populate directly with whatever number is<br>> the most appropriate expression of the relative abundance in the<br>> sample. That gives consumers a clear expectation of how to interpret and<br>handle it.<br>><br>> Donald<br>><br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - <a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org">dhobern@gbif.org</a> Global Biodiversity<br>> Information Facility <a href="http://www.gbif.org/" target="_blank">http://www.gbif.org/</a> GBIF Secretariat,<br>> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark<br>> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B45%203532%201471">+45 3532 1471</a> Mob: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201471">+45 2875 1471</a> Fax: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201480">+45 2875 1480</a><br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Aaike De<br>> Wever<br>> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44 AM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu">tuco@berkeley.edu</a>; TDWG Content Mailing List<br>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms -<br>> abundance, abundanceAsPercent<br>><br>> Dear all,<br>><br>> As somewhat of an outsider I have another question with regards to the<br>> proposed terms abundance and abundanceAsPercent.<br>><br>> Is there a specific reason for not adopting:<br>> * the abundance field as a field to store only the value and<br>> * a field abundanceUnit/abundanceType to specify whether the value is<br>> in % of species, % of biovolume, % of biomass, individuals/l,<br>> ind./m^2, ind/m^3, ind./sampling effort,...(instead of having a field<br>specific for %)?<br>><br>> Maybe this has been discussed during the hackathon and I missed it in<br>> the report?<br>><br>> Thanks for considering this question.<br>><br>> With best regards,<br>> Aaike<br>><br>> John Wieczorek wrote:<br>>> Dear all,<br>>><br>>> GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on<br>>> Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at<br>>> <a href="http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424" target="_blank">http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424</a>. Now that this document is<br>>> available for public reference, I would like to formally open the<br>>> minimum 30-day comment period on two related new terms proposed<br>>> during the workshop and defined in the referenced document.<br>>><br>>> The formal proposal would add the following new terms:<br>>><br>>> Term Name: abundance<br>>> Identifier: <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundance" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundance</a><br>>> Namespace: http:/<a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/" target="_blank">rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/</a><br>>> Label: Abundance<br>>> Definition: The number of individuals of a taxon found in a sample.<br>>> This is typically expressed as number per unit of area or volume. In<br>>> the case of vegetation and colonial/encrusting species, percent cover<br>>> can be used.<br>>> Comment: Examples: "4 per square meter", "0.32 per cubic meter",<br>>> "24%". For discussion see<br>>> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence</a> (there will be no<br>>> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term:<br>>> <a href="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property</a><br>>> Refines:<br>>> Status: proposed<br>>> Date Issued: 2012-03-01<br>>> Date Modified: 2013-09-25<br>>> Has Domain:<br>>> Has Range:<br>>> Refines:<br>>> Version: abundance-2013-09-25<br>>> Replaces:<br>>> IsReplaceBy:<br>>> Class: <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence</a><br>>> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this)<br>>><br>>> Term Name: abundanceAsPercent<br>>> Identifier: <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundanceAsPercent" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundanceAsPercent</a><br>>> Namespace: http:/<a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/" target="_blank">rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/</a><br>>> Label: Abundance as Percent<br>>> Definition: 100 times the number of individuals of a taxon found in a<br>>> sample divided by the total number of individuals of all taxa in the<br>>> sample.<br>>> Comment: Examples: "2.4%". For discussion see<br>>> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence</a> (there will be no<br>>> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term:<br>>> <a href="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property</a><br>>> Refines:<br>>> Status: proposed<br>>> Date Issued: 2012-08-01<br>>> Date Modified: 2013-09-25<br>>> Has Domain:<br>>> Has Range:<br>>> Refines:<br>>> Version: abundanceAsPercent-2013-09-25<br>>> Replaces:<br>>> IsReplaceBy:<br>>> Class: <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence</a><br>>> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this)<br>>><br>>> The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are<br>>> <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142</a><br>>> and<br>>> <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=187" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=187</a><br>>><br>>> If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these new<br>>> terms, or comments about their definitions, please respond to this<br>>> message. If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on<br>>> any amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive<br>>> Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after<br>>> the public commentary period.<br>>><br>>> Cheers,<br>>><br>>> John<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>><br>> --<br>> Aaike De Wever<br>> BioFresh Science Officer<br>> Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences<br>> Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium<br>> tel.: <a href="tel:%2B32%280%292%20627%2043%2090">+32(0)2 627 43 90</a><br>> mobile.: <a href="tel:%2B32%280%29486%2028%2005%2093">+32(0)486 28 05 93</a><br>> email: <<a href="mailto:aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be">aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be</a>><br>> skype: aaikew<br>> LinkedIn: <<a href="http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever" target="_blank">http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever</a>><br>> BioFresh: <<a href="http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/" target="_blank">http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/</a>> and<br>> <<a href="http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/" target="_blank">http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/</a>><br>> Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <<a href="http://www.biodiversity.be" target="_blank">http://www.biodiversity.be</a>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>><br>><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>