Sorry, I just did “reply-all”.
s
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D. he/him/his
Data Science and Data Curation Specialist / Librarian III
Digital Lab, Jean & Alexander Heard Libraries, Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235, USA
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Executive Committee/Technical Architecture Group Chair
From: Baskauf, Steven James <steve.baskauf@Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:03 AM
To: Humboldt Core TG <tdwg-humboldt@lists.tdwg.org>, Wesley M. Hochachka <wmh6@cornell.edu>, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-humboldt] Humboldt Task Group Meeting Wed 29 Nov 2023, 12:00 UTCHi Yani et al.,
Peter, Rob S., and I met this morning and thrashed our way through the Miscellaneous section from ALA in the Google doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OxJ_H5vBd9pucjdgQDa6qMaQKl4O89gf/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116355305033345986500&rtpof=true&sd=true that you referred to in your email below.
In the Miscellaneous section, we believe that we have addressed the issues that were raised; for each of them there is a description of our conclusion in the notes (following “Steve:” in each case). In each of the cases, we concluded that no action was required based on the reasons we gave. We spent quite a bit of time discussing whether the term samplingEffortProtocolReferences should be added. Our conclusion was that it should not, since the specific amount of effort applied in a particular survey would often be unique to that survey and therefore not likely to actually be published anywhere. It’s really a specialization of a published protocol that would be cited in protocolReferences. If for some reason multiple users found a real need for the term it could be added later using the normal DwC term addition process. If you concur with this reasoning, then Issue #87 would need to be closed without taking action.
Based on discussion in previous meetings, we concurred that adding verbatimTargetScope was probably necessary, so we also created the new term verbatimTargetScope in Issue #96 https://github.com/tdwg/hc/issues/96.
We pressed on with the discussion beyond the normal meeting time in order to wrap this up. We were in agreement that it would be really desirable to have this done by the end of calendar 2023. Yani, if you can verify that we’ve actually addressed all of the issues that ALA raised and ping John about that, we can set the 30 day clock running prior to the end of November. That would allow us to submit before or soon after Jan 1. Once the clock is running, Yani, John, and Steve could be working on making sure that the spreadsheet is up to date with any changes that we made so that the QRG and List of Terms can be updated for final submission by the DwC Maintenance Group to the Executive for ratification.
We are so close!
Steve
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D. he/him/his
Data Science and Data Curation Specialist / Librarian III
Digital Lab, Jean & Alexander Heard Libraries, Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235, USA
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Executive Committee/Technical Architecture Group Chair
From: tdwg-humboldt <tdwg-humboldt-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> on behalf of Yanina Sica <yanina.sica@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 4:47 AM
To: Humboldt Core TG <tdwg-humboldt@lists.tdwg.org>, Wesley M. Hochachka <wmh6@cornell.edu>, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu>
Subject: [tdwg-humboldt] Humboldt Task Group Meeting Wed 29 Nov 2023, 12:00 UTCDear all,
End of the year is getting closer and many people will start going on holidays. We still have some things to discuss but let's aim to finish them this week. The goal is to submit all our responses to the GitHub issues and potential new terms or changes by end Nov or beginning Dec. After this, the clock will restart and we will have to wait for another month before ratifying.
In order to be effective over the next week, I will ask you to share your comments (either in the meeting or over email) about a few points:
- Please review the Miscellaneous section from ALA (page 16 here).
- Please revise the new term proposed (see below) about reporting of scope in a more descriptive way. This term should be used as a last resort and in no way should replace the other scope trms. This term will allow to capture targets that are not included in the more explicits target scopes (e.g. targetTaxonomicScope) at least until new target scopes are proposed, and give more flexibility in the scope reporting, that is why we propose to include it as a verbatim term. This term will not allow completeness or absence inference.
- New term: eco:verbatimTargetScope
- Definition: ‘The verbatim original description of the dwc:Event scope.’
- Comments: ‘Recommended best practice is first to populate explicit scope terms to the fullest extent possible (e.g. eco:targetTaxonomicScope). It is not recommended to use this term in assessing absence or completeness.’ Scope of last resort! :)
- Examples: ‘small mammals’; ‘freshwater macroinvertebrates’; ‘dead animals’
Peggy, do you think you can join our next meeting? If not, can you suggest some time slots that work for you? I know it will be hard to coordinate a time that works for everybody and you have already spoken with Peter but it might be nice for some of us to meet with you and discuss your very appreciated feedback. In the meetine, we have collected some thoughts in this document.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to meet this week. My flight to Argentina got cancelled and now I am travelling tonight and will not be in time for our meeting.
All the best!
Yani
Yani