Hi all,
I am notoriously confused how to use the dwc terms that define the vertical position of a location.
For each of elevation, depth and distanceAboveSurface there is a minimum and maximum term defined. Taking min/max aside, how do those 3 terms play together?
From my common understanding elevation refers to the vertical position of the location relative to a reference point, usually the sea level. With negative values for places below the sea.
Wikipedia seems to follow the same definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation
The Darwin Core definition is a bit lose, but close:
"The lower limit of the range of elevation (altitude, usually above sea level), in meters."
The use of depth in that view is then only to give an idea how far below the (water) surface the location is (think pressure) - especially for places not in the sea like lakes.
In the case of locations under the sea depth should then always be the negated value of elevation, is that true?
I can see the use of the third term distanceAboveSurface from the drilling core in the only example given, but that is rather exotic. Would it not replace the term depth as a more generic version unrelated to water, for example to refer to locations up in trees?
Would a use of the terms like this be correct?
(A) a fish found 800m below the sea:
dwc:minElevationInMeters = -800
dwc:minDepthInMeters = 800
dwc:minDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters = -800
(B) a frog found on a tree, 20m above the ground which grows in 760m above the sea (measured from the ground):
dwc:minElevationInMeters = 780
dwc:minDepthInMeters =
dwc:minDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters = 20
When reading the definition for minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters I doubt my understanding is correct and instead elevation is used as the primary reference point on top of which depth and then distanceAboveSurface is added:
"The lesser distance in a range of distance from a reference surface in the vertical direction, in meters. Use positive values for locations above the surface, negative values for locations below. If depth measures are given, the reference surface is the location given by the depth, otherwise the reference surface is the location given by the elevation."
It would be good to have that documented a bit more explicitly.
Any advice appreciated.
best,
Markus
Hi all,
we are currently improving our webservices at GBIF and do hit again the issue about whether dwc:genus represents the genus of the accepted or actually applied scientificName. So far GBIF has used the DWC definition and used dwc:genus as the genus the name had been classified into, i.e. the genus of the accepted name in case of synonyms. We would like to continue with that definition, but there had been requests to also expose the actual parsed name and would like to adopt the previously proposed but never ratified terms dwc:genericName and dwc:infragenericEpithet for this. See http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2012-March/002882.html for a quick summary of the previous discussions and the issue itself at google code: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151.
As a backup to the proposal, i4Life / Catalogue of Life are also already using the newly proposed terms in their dwca format.
Can we get an agreement to add those 2 terms to Darwin Core?
best,
Markus
PS: It might be a good oppertunity to also add dwc:strain and dwc:cultivarEpithet
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=144https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=141
Dear colleagues,
Recent years have seen a surge in projects that produce large volumes of
biodiversity data. Examples of these are structured, machine-readable data
as extracted from digitised heritage biodiversity literature, species
occurrence data, comparative data for phylogenetics, taxonomies, digitised
collection specimens, and so on.
These data can be represented in a variety of standards-compliant
interchange formats (using XML, RDF, JSON, etc.) making them amenable to
processing by generic, open source "data enrichment" workflows. The idea is
simple - enrich biodiversity data with meaningful links to related
resources, such as links from named locations to standardized
georeferences, links from taxon names to taxon concept URIs, links from
characters and traits to trait ontologies, links to relevant images,
semantic descriptions of data provenance, links to publications, and so on.
To this end, we would like to invite you to the "Data enrichment hackathon"
that will take place March 17th - 21st, 2014 at the Naturalis Biodiversity
Center, in Leiden, the Netherlands. The hackathon will bring together
domain experts in biodiversity informatics from a variety of subdisciplines
to be creative with biodiversity data and to write code.
The end result will be open source tooling that will allow stakeholders to
re-use and enhance biodiversity knowledge. We think that such tooling might
include tools that add properties to data; that convert between formats,
expanded controlled vocabularies or ontologies; data integrators;
annotations and query tools, etc.
The hackathon is organised with the support of Naturalis [1] in the scope
of the pro-iBiosphere project[2], an FP7 e-infrastructure project that
focuses on making biodiversity data and information (now entrapped in
literature) open, linked and digital. pro-iBiosphere has the vision of
implementing an Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS), i.e.
an integration platform that will allow to produce Biotas (i.e. Floras,
Faunas, Mycotas and other revisionary taxonomic literature) of the future
in a flexible semantically-driven online environment. We would very much
appreciate if you can state your intent to participate by the 14th of
February 2014 at the latest. In order to facilitate the organisation of the
event and be aware of your interests and specialties please fill in a brief
questionnaire [3]. We have limited funding to support the participation and
travel costs of a number of participants. In case you need funding to join
the Hackathon, please indicate this in your response to the questionnaire.
If you are not able to participate but have suggestions for other
colleagues that could join the hackathon, please let us know.
The agenda, accommodation and other relevant information is available on
our wiki[4]. For any additional question please email
Rutger.Vos(a)naturalis.nl or Soraya.Sierra(a)naturalis.nl. We look forward to
seeing you in Leiden! With best regards,
Rutger Vos and Soraya Sierra
[1] http://www.naturalis.nl [2] http://www.pro-ibiosphere.eu/[3]http://tinyurl.com/NBCDataHackForm [4]
http://wiki.pro-ibiosphere.eu/wiki/Data_enrichment_hackathon,_March_17-21_2…
