[TDWG-MIDS] vocabularies for characterizing samples

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Apr 29 22:18:10 UTC 2021

Thanks, Steve, for sharing this!


Likewise, for several years we have been exploring a way to harmonize our natural sciences collections with our cultural, anthropological and archaeological collections, and have generally found unexpectedly high degrees of similarity in terms of data modelling and data management needs.  I would add my voice to the chorus that we should move the biodiversity standards in a direction that makes them compatible with non-biodiversity collections/research data management needs.





Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704

Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252

eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

 <http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html> BishopMuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.


From: tdwg-mids <tdwg-mids-bounces at lists.tdwg.org> On Behalf Of smrtucson at gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:35 AM
To: tdwg-mids at lists.tdwg.org
Cc: Dave Vieglais <dave.vieglais at gmail.com>; 'Ramona Walls' <rlwalls2008 at gmail.com>
Subject: [TDWG-MIDS] vocabularies for characterizing samples


Hello MIDS—

I am with the iSamples project (https://isamplesorg.github.io/home/), working on a core metadata schema for describing physical samples from the Earth Science, Bioscience and Archaeology/Anthropology domains. Our objectives overlap with the MIDS, and we would like to stay in close communication to harmonize our outputs. This is a work in progress, and we're interested in as much alignment as possible with TDWG work.

After studying various sample description schemes from our focus domains, the draft core metadata scheme has high level categories for specimenType, materialType, and sampledFeatureType with a controlled vocabulary of 10-20 classes for each type. (The design then accommodates domain specific categories extending these type for more granular searching.)    These are related to the materialTypes MIDS element under discussion <https://github.com/tdwg/mids/issues/14> ; you might have see my posting in that discussion. 

*	SpecimenType is concerned with the kind of object (specimen)-similar to MIDS level 1 MaterialType, 
*	MaterialType is concerned with what the object (specimen) is composed of-- similar to MIDS level 3. 
*	SampledFeature categories serve to identify broad context for the collection event. 

We are testing the three vocabularies with a card sorting exercise. There are descriptions of 65 samples mined from various sample databases; the exercise consists of assigning each sample ‘card’ to one of the categories in the vocabulary.  We would very much like to get input from a broader community on the vocabularies . If you have 20 min or so, please try one (or more!) of the sorting exercises.


Specimen Type Sorting   https://x12745x3.optimalworkshop.com/optimalsort/3x1kqnv2

Specimen Material Type Sorting    https://x12745x3.optimalworkshop.com/optimalsort/ud4300c4-0 

Sampled Feature Type Sorting    https://x12745x3.optimalworkshop.com/optimalsort/qf1254qw






Stephen M. Richard

US Geoscience Information Network (USGIN)

 <mailto:smrTucson at gmail.com> smrTucson at gmail.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-mids/attachments/20210429/038ad4b2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the tdwg-mids mailing list