[tdwg-humboldt] Humboldt Extension Public Review preparations

Mon Aug 14 14:00:38 UTC 2023

Ahh, good point on that John.

I will amend my vote to support option 2. :)

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:38 PM John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for this input, Kate.
>
> It seems we are of divided opinions about when to address non-target
> organisms than whether to do so. Assuming it will be done eventually, here
> is an attempt to get the issues on the table.
>
> Kate is proposing terms from the Occurrence perspective in the sense that
> they would be populated for child-most Occurrence Events (I'll use eco:
> isNonTargetOrganism). That is, The Event record associated with the
> Occurrence would have a Humboldt extension term eco:isNonTargetOrganism
> populated).
>
> Last Wednesday Anahita was proposing terms at a parent Event level (I'll
> use eco:hasNontargetTaxa, eco:areNontargetOrganismsFullyReported, and
> eco:nonTargetTaxa). This parent Event perspective alerts a user about what
> to expect among the children. It should be possible to confirm the
> expectations among the children by investigating them.
>
> These two approaches are very different. The first approach seems like a
> bit of a contorsion to me in that the term really ought to be an Occurrence
> term, and yet it would be going into the Event extension. A second problem
> I see is that it would be a challenge for users to know whether a data set,
> or a particular Event within a data set, is potentially fit for their
> purpose because all of the child Occurrences would have to be investigated
> to see if there were relevant non-target taxa.
>
> The second approach circumvents the issues mentioned above. The term
> eco:hasNontargetTaxa for an Event would be a single boolean that could
> immediately alert a user about what to expect among the child Occurrences.
> It could also be populated for the Occurrence Events, serving the role
> intended for eco:isTargetOrganism. The term eco:nonTargetTaxa could
> actually list those taxa so the user would know what was considered
> non-target. The term eco:areNontargetOrganismsFullyReported seems extremely
> important, but it is also extremely problematic, the problem being that it
> seems like the value of this term would almost ALWAYS have to be 'false'.
>
> So, there are clearly things to discuss, but here is an attempt
> to jump-start term definitions at least.
>
> eco:hasNontargetTaxa
>
>    - definition: One or more dwc:Organisms of taxa outside the target
>    taxonomic and organismal scopes were detected and reported for this
>    dwc:Event.
>    - comments: Should be empty if no taxonomic scope is declared. Should
>    be 'true' if Occurrences of taxa outside the taxonomic and organismal
>    scopes as defined at the time of the dwc:Event are included for the
>    dwc:Event. Should be 'false' if no Occurrences of taxa outside the
>    taxonomic and organismal scopes as defined at the time of the dwc:Event are
>    included for the dwc:Event.
>    - examples: 'true'; 'false'
>
> eco:nonTargetTaxa
>
>    - definition: A list (concatenated and separated) of taxa reported
>    during the dwc:Event that are outside of the eco:targetTaxonomicScope.
>    - comments: Non-target taxa can be reported at any taxonomic level.
>    Recommended best practice is to separate multiple values in a list with
>    space vertical bar space ( | ).
>    - examples: `Parabuteo unicinctus | Geranoaetus melanoleucus`;
>    `Cetoniinae | Aclopinae | Cyclocephala modesta`
>
> eco:areNontargetOrganismsFullyReported
>
>    - definition: Every dwc:Organism that was outside the
>    eco:targetTaxonomicScope, and was detected during the dwc:Event,  and was
>    detectable using the given protocol, was reported.
>    - comments: This term is only relevant if the dwc:Event used
>    restricted search or open search methods and the value should otherwise be
>    empty. If all dwc:Organisms not included within the
>    eco:targetTaxonomicScope and detected during the dwc:Event were reported,
>    the value should be 'true'. If all dwc:Organisms not included within the
>    eco:targetTaxonomicScope and detected during the dwc:Event were not
>    reported, the value should be 'false'.
>    - examples: 'true; 'false'
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:09 AM Kate Ingenloff <
> kathryn.ingenloff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi John, Steve, Yani, et al.,
>>
>> Thank you so much John and Steve. The landing page looks great! I'll be
>> happy to help look over documentation this week.
>>
>> As for bycatch, as Yani said, we've discussed this several times and I
>> think it's important to include a couple of the obvious terms for data
>> providers to denote if individual occurrences within a survey are bycatch
>> (e.g., isBycatch or isNonTargetOrganism,) or perhaps to identify is a
>> separate dataset (Event) of some level is nothing but bycatch (e.g.,
>> allBycatchReported or allNonTargetOrganismsReported). I think we would be
>> remiss to not include a couple of relevant terms prior to public review.
>> Discussion shouldn't have to take too long and feedback from the first
>> round of review can help fill in the rest (if more than those two terms are
>> necessary).
>>
>> Just my two cents :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kate
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 2:43 AM John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Steve and I have been working through and finished (to the extent we
>>> can) the preparations of the documents needed for the public review of the
>>> Humboldt Extension. The idea is that the basic entry point to the review
>>> would be this landing page
>>> <https://github.com/tdwg/hc/blob/main/docs/index.md> and that
>>> everything to review would be accessible from there.
>>>
>>> We need the Task Group to finalize all documents to be included and to
>>> authorize the Darwin Core Maintenance Group to initiate the review. When
>>> authorized, the Darwin Core Task Group will send a message introducing the
>>> submission and how people should review it. It would be great to have a
>>> brief statement presenting the proposal from the Task Group to have at the
>>> beginning of that message. The DwC Maintenance Group will also solicit the
>>> TDWG Outreach folks to publicize the public review via various channels and
>>> social media. Anyone will be welcome to further publicize it in any
>>> community that TDWG misses.
>>>
>>> The issue of new terms for by-catch came up late in last Wednesday's
>>> meeting after several people had to leave. I don't feel comfortable
>>> including anything official from that conversation without the Task Group
>>> making decisions. There are a few reasonable options.
>>>
>>> The first option for the "by-catch" terms is to add those terms now and
>>> include them in the proposal. That means work up front to make sure
>>> the terms are well-defined and thought through. Think of this ratification
>>> process very much as if it was the publication of a manuscript with peer
>>> review. As such, an important goal is to try to avoid avoidable public
>>> discussion, which has the potential to slow things down or even derail
>>> ratification.
>>>
>>> A second option might be to propose the new terms during public review
>>> and see if there is buy-in. This strategy is likely to make the
>>> ratification process slower, and runs a risk (that I might be inventing)
>>> that if such an added proposal came from people in the Task Group,
>>> reviewers might view that our work was submitted unfinished.
>>>
>>> A third option might be to leave the proposal as is without additional
>>> terms, get it through ratification, and sometime afterwards propose new
>>> terms. This follows the normal evolution process of Darwin Core, so there
>>> would not be anything odd about it. It would also guarantee that there is
>>> demand for such terms, as that is a prerequisite for accepting new term
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> It isn't for the Darwin Core Maintenance Group to decide the strategy
>>> the Task Group should take, but rather to advise and facilitate in the
>>> search for a successful proposal
>>>
>>> I hope this feels like we are getting close.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John and Steve on behalf of the Darwin Core Maintenance Group
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tdwg-humboldt mailing list
>>> tdwg-humboldt at lists.tdwg.org
>>> https://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-humboldt
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------
>> Kate Ingenloff, PhD
>> Pronouns: she/her(s)
>> (+45) 51 44 13 23
>>
>> "When one tugs at a single thread in nature, he finds it attached to the
>> rest of the world." ~John Muir
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------
Kate Ingenloff, PhD
Pronouns: she/her(s)
(+45) 51 44 13 23

"When one tugs at a single thread in nature, he finds it attached to the
rest of the world." ~John Muir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-humboldt/attachments/20230814/3a7a1475/attachment.html>