April 2015 - tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

Re: [tdwg-content] If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class
by Nico Franz 05 Jun '25

05 Jun '25

Hello all: I have a few inserted comments, hopefully with some clarifying effect: On 5/4/2011 10:54 AM, Peter DeVries wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I may have overloaded the term specimen to make the explanation easier > to follow. > > A specimen could be an individual or it could be part of an individual. > > To some extent you need to think about how these models will be used. > > If you subscribe to the model that a species is whatever a taxonomists > says it is then it is difficult to make statements like. > > X% of the world's species will be extinct by 2050. > > If you mean a species as defined by the concept documented at this URI > which is supported by these specimens, images, and DNA then you are on > firmer ground. > > Species in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those > individuals that are appropriate mates. In other words members of > their own species. > > Are we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of > species? > >> Assuming that there was only one individual organism identified >> there is really one one species (or hybrid). > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Please Nico C., don't take this one up! > > > I stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That > individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what > species it is a human issue. > > Again, Are we modeling species or variations in human > conceptualizations of species? NMF: I believe there is a history of biodiversity database engineering that actually led some people, initially in Australia (Greg Whitbread?) and Europe (Berendsohn's group) to place more emphasis on modeling human conceptualizations of taxa. I understand this happened in the late 80s / early 90s. The motivation was, apparently, that no long-term consensus seemed available to model a single and sufficiently widely accepted taxonomy of, say, Central European vascular plant species or mosses. I believe that projects such as the Euro + Med PlantBase (http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html) are examples of the persistence (success?) of this 20+ year old practice. I think this is the kind of background that Steve is referring to. > > Which of these is of primary importance to decision makers and > non-taxonomist biologists? > Part of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies > and taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific > phylogenetic hypothesis. > > In the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make > them out to be. > > Each individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene > lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths. > > I would argue that most of those who work with species related data > see them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the > biological species model. NMF: The solution of how to properly model things such as species in RDF, OWL (etc.) should ideally accommodate all "species concepts" (BCS, ESC, PSC, GSC, there's dozens), i.e. it should be neutral towards this issue. The examples below are too simple, ignoring for example cases such as pro parte synonymy, or a concept ("species") that appears unique and monophyletic to one author but (vastly) polyphyletic to another. To do an accurate mapping in that latter case (which is not super-common but it's real), I think one would have to come down on saying we're modeling human conceptualizations. They are not just that, so really it's not a strict dichotomy, meaning that by modeling conceptualizations we do not have to say "the species only exist on our heads", or "well, then anything goes". I agree (sheepishly) that it does come down to what the input data look like, and what the expectations are towards just accommodating the user community versus pushing them in a particular direction. Some of this also on p. 47 of this PDF: https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/jbi/article/view/3927/3852 > > /Aedes triseriatus/ owl:sameAs /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > > Others seem to see them as phylogenetic end nodes which entail a > specific phylogenetic history. > > /Aedes triseriatus/ distinctFrom /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > / > / > If you are primarily interested in understanding issues of ecology, > disease, diversity and conservation the former model is more > appropriate than the later. > > Respectfully, > > - Pete Regards, Nico Nico M. Franz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director, UPRM Invertebrate Collection Department of Biology University of Puerto Rico Call Box 9000 Mayagüez, PR 00681-9000 Phone: (787) 832-4040, ext. 3005 Fax: (787) 834-3673 E-mail: nico.franz(a)upr.edu Laboratory website: http://academic.uprm.edu/~franz/ UPRM-INVCOL: http://uprm-invcol-project.tumblr.com/

3 2

Recap - Darwin Core Standard - proposed changes in governance
by John Wieczorek 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

Dear all, There has been consistent agreement (though I would hesitate to say consensus prematurely) about some aspects of the proposal to redefine which documents comprise the Darwin Core standard. The discussion has been fruitful and appreciated. Yet, I believe we are at an impasse in terms of implementing the proposed changes because a) I have not followed the correct process so far, and b) the interim TDWG Standards Process that are supposed to govern the process is not amenable to the changes that were proposed. I'll try to explain briefly. The proposal was to redefine which documents comprise the Darwin Core standard, not to make additions or changes to the Darwin Core terms, The latter would fall under Darwin Core's "internal" namespace policy[1]. Instead, this proposal is a change to the structure as well as documentary content of the standard as a whole, which falls under the interim TDWG Standards Documentation Specification[2], as Steve Baskauf pointed out[3]. To fulfill those requirements is an onerous task (my heartfelt pity for those who have had to go through it) - too onerous, I believe, for what we are trying to accomplish here, which is to change an existing standard (indeed, make it easier to manage) rather than create a new one. We are not allowed to do that according to the interim TDWG Standards Documentation Specification, which states, "Once a standard has been ratified it cannot be changed in any substantive way; it must be superseded by a standard with a different name." All question of versioning aside, we would have to follow the process of creating a new standard. Unless there is a way to get an Executive override of the interim process standard in order to allow us to make the proposed changes and liberate Darwin Core to evolve more effectively, I think we have to wait for the overhaul of the Standards Documentation Specification. The Task Group Charter to do that work has been submitted, but the results are not slated to be fully realized until 1 Jan 2016. This is unfortunate, as it leaves a huge body of work to refactor Darwin Core and its management [4] unrealizable in an official capacity. Ideas welcome. Cheers, John [1] Darwin Core Namespace Policy. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm [2] TDWG Standards Documentation Specification. http://www.tdwg.org/standards/147/ [3] tdwg-content email from Steve Baskauf. http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2015-January/003429.html [4] Github branch of Darwin Core repository for streamlined management.

2 3

Darwin Core Proposal - environment terms
by John Wieczorek 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

Dear all, This message pertains to a proposal[1] set forth in September 2013 concerning the environment terms biome, environmentalFeature, and environmentalMaterial. I'm renewing the proposal because so much time has passed and the original proposal was not carried through to completion. There were no objections to the addition of those terms during the initial public commentary. Discussion revolved around how the recommendations for how to populate them. The recommendations for all three terms will suggest using a controlled vocabulary such as ENVO. The examples will be based on the set of subclasses of the corresponding ENVO terms for biome[2], environmentalFeature[3], and environmentalMaterial[4]. As with all Darwin Core terms, the constraints on content are not part of the definition - they are only illustrative recommendations. The importance of these terms was recognized anew at a Darwin Core and MIxS Hackathon in Florence in Sep 2014[5]. One important outcome of that workshop was the the realization that there is currently no possibility of a Darwin Core PreservedSpecimen or MaterialSample record to meet the minimum requirements of a Mimarks Specimen record[6], as there is currently no way to share required environment terms. This creates a huge and easy to solve barrier to integration of data across the collection, sample, and sequence realms. This proposal is not substantively different from the one discussed in 2013. It differs from the final amended previous proposal in two ways, 1) only the three terms biome, environmentalFeature, and environmentalMaterial are proposed here (the proposal to change to the term 'habitat' has been dropped), and 2) the term definitions have been updated to agree with those in ENVO. The terms will be in the Darwin Core namespace (following the TDWG community consensus in the previous discussion as well the consensus to coin the MaterialSample class in the Darwin Core namespace rather than use obi:specimen, with the equivalency being made on the ontology side in BCO[7]). The complete definitions of the three proposed terms is given below the following references. This reopens the 30-day public commentary period for the addition of new terms as described in the Darwin Core Namespace Policy[8]. [1] Original tdwg-content proposal for environment terms. http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2013-September/003066.html [2] ENVO biome. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000428 [3] ENVO environmentalFeature. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002297 [4] ENVO environmentalMaterial. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00010483 [5] DwC MIxS Meeting Notes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zexgsiol6WC83vDzMTCF3uUB7DcFmKL15DFEPbw… [6] Table of the core items of Mimarks checklists. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n5/fig_tab/nbt.1823_T1.html [7] Biological Collections Ontology. https://github.com/tucotuco/bco [8] Darwin Core Namespace Policy. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges Term Name: biome Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/biome Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Biome Definition: An environmental system to which resident ecological communities have evolved adaptations. Comment: Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the biome class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Examples: "flooded grassland biome", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195". Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2015-03-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: biome-2015-03-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD Term Name: environmentalFeature Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalFeature Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Environmental Feature Definition: A material entity which determines an environmental system. Comment: Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the environmental feature class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Examples: "meadow", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000108". Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2015-03-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: environmentalFeature-2015-03-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD Term Name: environmentalMaterial Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalMaterial Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Environmental Material Definition: A portion of environmental material is a fiat object which forms the medium or part of the medium of an environmental system. Comment: Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the environmental feature class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Examples: "scum", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00003930". Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2015-03-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: environmentalMaterial-2015-03-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD

5 6

Darwin Core and phylogenies
by Roderic Page 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

My apologies in advance if this has come up before. Historically it seems that phylogenetics and classical biodiversity informatics live in separate worlds, for a bunch of reasons. One area they clearly intersect though is “phylogeography” or “geophylogenies”. I’ve been playing simple ways to create and visualise geophylogenies (e.g., http://iphylo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/geojson-and-geophylogenies.html ) and it occurs to me that it might be useful to have a Darwin Core-style way of encoding these. Phylogenetic data is typically stored very differently from the simple row-based approach adopted by Darwin Core (e.g., NEXUS format, XML [yuck], or JSON [sometimes yucky if it’s full of XML-style baggage, but I digress]). This makes it a challenge to integrate phylogenetic data with projects such as GBIF. This lack of integration is regrettable, anyone looking at the rise of phylogeography and DNA barcoding will recognise that many classically-defined species are poor representations of actual biodiversity, even in taxa that we think we know quite well (e.g., vertebrates). Given that we can encode a phylogenetic tree as a set of rows, each one representing an edge in the tree (what those of a certain age would call and "ancestor function”), it would be easy to have a Darwin Core extension that had one row per node in the tree, optionally with branch lengths, and leaf nodes also labelled by occurrence id (the same id used in the standard occurrence table, where ideally most if not all would be georeferenced). In this way we could add geophylogenies to Darwin Core archives, and existing tools for importing these (e.g., GBIF) could simply ignore the phylogeny until such times as they can handle them, but other tools could read the trees and display them. Is anyone doing something along these lines? Regards Rod --------------------------------------------------------- Roderic Page Professor of Taxonomy Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK Email: Roderic.Page(a)glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page@glasgow.ac.uk> Tel: +44 141 330 4778 Skype: rdmpage Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767 Citations: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] Problem when validating Simple Darwin Core Recordset file
by Mergen Patricia 15 Apr '15

15 Apr '15

Dear Martin Thanks for your mail. I forward your mail to the experts list who may advice further. With my best wishes Pat Le 5 Avr. 2015 08:20, "Seifert-Martin" <Seifert-Martin(a)t-online.de> a écrit : > Dear Madam or Sir, > > when validating a Simple Darwin Core Recordset file I get the following > error messages: > > File: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd, line 100, column 71: > Cannot resolve the name 'dwc:sampleSizeValue' to a(n) 'element > declaration' component. > <xs:element ref="dwc:sampleSizeValue" minOccurs="0"/> > > File: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd, line 101, column > 70: > Cannot resolve the name 'dwc:sampleSizeUnit' to a(n) 'element declaration' > component. > <xs:element ref="dwc:sampleSizeUnit" minOccurs="0"/> > > File: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwcterms.xsd, line 206, column 67: > Cannot resolve the name 'dwc:sampleSizeValue' to a(n) 'element > declaration' component. > <xs:element ref="dwc:sampleSizeValue" minOccurs="0"/> > > File: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwcterms.xsd, line 207, column 66: > Cannot resolve the name 'dwc:sampleSizeUnit' to a(n) 'element declaration' > component. > <xs:element ref="dwc:sampleSizeUnit" minOccurs="0"/> > > Please, would you forward this e-mail to one of your technicians. > > Kind regards, > Martin Seifert > >

4 3

Linked Data and the Charm of Weak Semantics
by Bob Morris 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

"Linked Data and the Charm of Weak Semantics " Special section in http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-15/Bulletin_AprMay2015.pdf Bob -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Filtered Push Project Harvard University Herbaria Harvard University email: morris.bob(a)gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org http://wiki.datakurator.net http://taxonconceptexplorer.org/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram

1 0

Clarification about values for dwc:county
by Steve Baskauf 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

The definition of dwc:county is: "The full, unabbreviated name of the next smaller administrative region than stateProvince (county, shire, department, etc.) in which the Location occurs." What I'm wondering about is whether the "full" name includes the second part to the name as it's typically written in the U.S. and Canada. "Missoula" is given as an example. However, the full name of that county in Montana is actually "Missoula County". If there were consistency in second parts of county names, one could just assume that one adds " County" after the value given for dwc:county. However, there isn't consistency. In Louisiana, it's "Washington Parish". In Alaska, names usually end with "Borough" (e.g. "Denali Borough"), although sometimes they don't (e.g. "Dillingham Census Area"). Outside the U.S. and Canada, there may be no second part to the name, or it might be something completely different. I am having a problem with this when I try to display values of dwc:county on a web page. Currently I have some rules that involve examining the country and the value of dwc:stateProvince to decide what to append after the first part of the name. But they don't work for Alaska and if I just said "Dillingham, Alaska" that would really be wrong if I meant the Dillingham Census Area and not the city of Dillingham. It would be easier to display them if the second part of the name were included in the value. Is there a convention on this? I was assuming that it would be to omit the second part of the name, but since the definition says "full, unabbreviated name", I'm not sure. Steve -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees

4 5

Re: [tdwg-content] FW: domesticated species identifier in GBIF?
by Ramona Walls 12 Apr '15

12 Apr '15

Dear Daniela: The Biological Collections Ontology (BCO) <https://github.com/tucotuco/bco> maps Darwin Core terms to an ontology. One of our goals for doing this is so that we can work out the semantics of new terms requests before they are submitted to Darwin Core, thereby, we hope, avoiding circular and often hard to follow discussions on the mailing list. The process we suggest is to explore the definitions and semantics of terms in BCO, and then, once there is some agreement, request them to DwC if appropriate. In many case, new terms may not be needed for Darwin Core, but instead we can provide a controlled vocabulary to serve as the values for existing Darwin Core properties. We have a recent request for origin and establishment terms ( https://github.com/tucotuco/bco/issues/30) which we have begun working on. I think that your request for domestication status fits very nicely with this, and we could include terms as part of the same discussion. Would you be willing to add your comments and suggested definitions to the issue? Ramona ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FW: domesticated species identifier in GBIF? (Mergen Patricia) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:16:36 +0200 > From: Mergen Patricia <mergen.patricia(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] FW: domesticated species identifier in > GBIF? > To: Daniela Soleri <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu>, tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > Message-ID: > < > CAKpZQj35tnhHX6joXVMXcEqq2JNjiuGcGPqQp9x_N0QgX9V5Yw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Daniela > > I forward your question to the TDWG-content list where experts can further > answer your questions. > you can also become member of the list here : > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo > > all the best > > Patricia > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Daniela Soleri <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu> > wrote: > > > Dear Patricia Mergen, > > > > I have been referred to the TDWG by the GBIF secretariat. I am very > > interested in pursuing the inclusion of the categories "domesticate" and > > "domesticate wild relative" as identifiers on the GBIF platform, which I > > believe will have wide utility for a diversity of users. Can you please > > tell me who I should contact, and/or the process of proposing and > > justifying such inclusions? > > > > Thank you for your assistance. Best wishes, > > > > Daniela Soleri > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: domesticated species > > identifier in GBIF? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:20:59 +0200 From: GBIF > > Helpdesk <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> To: > soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu CC: > > Dmitry Schigel [GBIF] <dschigel(a)gbif.org> <dschigel(a)gbif.org>, 'GBIF > > Helpdesk' <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org>, portal(a)gbif.org > > > > Dear Daniela, > > > > We do not have an identifier for domesticated species and there is no > such property on the horizon either. GBIF is employing the Darwin Core > terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm ) and you would need to > engage with TDWG if you want to submit recommendations. You can sign up for > the mailing list here:http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > > > If you have a list of the species of interest, I can generate a custom > download for you. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jan K. Legind > > GBIF Secretariat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniela Soleri [mailto:soleri@geog.ucsb.edu <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu > >] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:20 PM > > To: info(a)gbif.org > > Subject: domesticated species identifier in GBIF? > > > > Is there a domesticated species identifier for GBIF entries so that it > is possible to search exclusively for or within domesticated species only? > Please let me know if any such identifier exists or is being planned. > > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > Daniela Soleri, PhD > > Associate Research Scientist > > Geography Department > > UC Santa Barbara > > Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] FW: domesticated species identifier in GBIF?
by Donald Hobern 11 Apr '15

11 Apr '15

Dear Daniela, I understand the value and interest of what you are seeking to achieve. However, it is a little more complicated. The Darwin Core data that you see in GBIF is from data shared by many different publishers from work on their collections or field research. Few of these data sets standardly mark all records e.g. as "alien" or "naturalised" or "domesticated" - because it is not necessarily a significant factor in the context of their research. For this reason, marking data which relates to "domesticated" organisms or "wild relatives" can only easily be handled as a secondary interpretation of the data. This would be possible if we had an agreed list of species which should be tagged this way. It may however be that the tags should only apply in certain localities, since the species may exist in the wild in other areas. This introduces more complexity. For this reason, right now, it makes most sense for researchers to identify the list of species of interest to them and the areas of interest and filter data accordingly. If you are able to identify a suitable and generally useful list of species that could be of value to others, we can explore ways to make it accessible and to use it to tag the species in question. Sorry if this is not a quick answer, but I hope it helps. Best wishes, Donald Hobern GBIF Executive Secretary > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:16:36 +0200 > From: Mergen Patricia <mergen.patricia(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] FW: domesticated species identifier in > GBIF? > To: Daniela Soleri <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu>, tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > Message-ID: > < > CAKpZQj35tnhHX6joXVMXcEqq2JNjiuGcGPqQp9x_N0QgX9V5Yw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Daniela > > I forward your question to the TDWG-content list where experts can further > answer your questions. > you can also become member of the list here : > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo > > all the best > > Patricia > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Daniela Soleri <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu> > wrote: > > > Dear Patricia Mergen, > > > > I have been referred to the TDWG by the GBIF secretariat. I am very > > interested in pursuing the inclusion of the categories "domesticate" and > > "domesticate wild relative" as identifiers on the GBIF platform, which I > > believe will have wide utility for a diversity of users. Can you please > > tell me who I should contact, and/or the process of proposing and > > justifying such inclusions? > > > > Thank you for your assistance. Best wishes, > > > > Daniela Soleri > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: domesticated species > > identifier in GBIF? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:20:59 +0200 From: GBIF > > Helpdesk <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> To: > soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu CC: > > Dmitry Schigel [GBIF] <dschigel(a)gbif.org> <dschigel(a)gbif.org>, 'GBIF > > Helpdesk' <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org>, portal(a)gbif.org > > > > Dear Daniela, > > > > We do not have an identifier for domesticated species and there is no > such property on the horizon either. GBIF is employing the Darwin Core > terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm ) and you would need to > engage with TDWG if you want to submit recommendations. You can sign up for > the mailing list here:http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > > > If you have a list of the species of interest, I can generate a custom > download for you. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jan K. Legind > > GBIF Secretariat > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniela Soleri [mailto:soleri@geog.ucsb.edu <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu > >] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:20 PM > > To: info(a)gbif.org > > Subject: domesticated species identifier in GBIF? > > > > Is there a domesticated species identifier for GBIF entries so that it > is possible to search exclusively for or within domesticated species only? > Please let me know if any such identifier exists or is being planned. > > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > Daniela Soleri, PhD > > Associate Research Scientist > > Geography Department > > UC Santa Barbara > > Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] FW: domesticated species identifier in GBIF?
by Mergen Patricia 10 Apr '15

10 Apr '15

Dear Daniela I forward your question to the TDWG-content list where experts can further answer your questions. you can also become member of the list here : http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo all the best Patricia On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Daniela Soleri <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu> wrote: > Dear Patricia Mergen, > > I have been referred to the TDWG by the GBIF secretariat. I am very > interested in pursuing the inclusion of the categories "domesticate" and > "domesticate wild relative" as identifiers on the GBIF platform, which I > believe will have wide utility for a diversity of users. Can you please > tell me who I should contact, and/or the process of proposing and > justifying such inclusions? > > Thank you for your assistance. Best wishes, > > Daniela Soleri > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: domesticated species > identifier in GBIF? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:20:59 +0200 From: GBIF > Helpdesk <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> To: soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu CC: > Dmitry Schigel [GBIF] <dschigel(a)gbif.org> <dschigel(a)gbif.org>, 'GBIF > Helpdesk' <helpdesk(a)gbif.org> <helpdesk(a)gbif.org>, portal(a)gbif.org > > Dear Daniela, > > We do not have an identifier for domesticated species and there is no such property on the horizon either. GBIF is employing the Darwin Core terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm ) and you would need to engage with TDWG if you want to submit recommendations. You can sign up for the mailing list here:http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > If you have a list of the species of interest, I can generate a custom download for you. > > > Sincerely, > > Jan K. Legind > GBIF Secretariat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniela Soleri [mailto:soleri@geog.ucsb.edu <soleri(a)geog.ucsb.edu>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:20 PM > To: info(a)gbif.org > Subject: domesticated species identifier in GBIF? > > Is there a domesticated species identifier for GBIF entries so that it is possible to search exclusively for or within domesticated species only? Please let me know if any such identifier exists or is being planned. > > Thank you, > > -- > Daniela Soleri, PhD > Associate Research Scientist > Geography Department > UC Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 > > > > > > > > >

1 0