- tdwg - lists.tdwg.org

IT job in NHM London
by Dave Roberts 29 Mar '06

29 Mar '06

Dear all, apologies for cross-posting. Under the EU-EDIT grant the NHM is recruiting an IT person to develop web taxonomy. Details can be found at http://www.jobsgopublic.com/ and search for "IT Researcher" or see the current issue of Nature (30th March 06). Briefly the post is 4.5 years starting this August. I'd be grateful if you would draw this to the attention of anyone tha t you think might be interested. Cheers, Dave

1 0

Survey: Feedback and Requirements for Use of GBIF Data Portal
by Donald Hobern 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has been operating its prototype data portal for biodiversity data (http://www.gbif.net/) since 2004 and is now developing a new portal incorporating lessons learned from these early experiences (to be released at the end of 2006). The aim of this portal will be to provide rapid access to distributed biodiversity data resources from all over the world. The portal should support user access through HTML web browsers, as well as machine access by other portals and analytical tools through web service programming interfaces. GBIF wishes to receive the widest possible feedback on the existing prototype data portal and user requirements for the new portal. As part of this process, we have set up the following online survey and would like to receive responses by 30 April 2006: Feedback and Requirements for use of GBIF Data Portal - end-user requirements for access to biodiversity data http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=279441780723 We plan to offer two further related surveys over the next few weeks: Feedback and Requirements for providers of data to GBIF Data Portal requirements from individuals and organisations sharing data through the GBIF network Technical Feedback on architecture for GBIF Data Portal review of architecture and design for GBIF data portal and its associated web services For more information on GBIFs plans for the data portal, please see: The GBIF Data Portal Strategy, available from: http://circa.gbif.net/Public/irc/gbif/dadi/library?l=/architecture The GBIF Data Portal Design wiki at: http://wiki.gbif.org/dadiwiki/ Please note that this survey relates to the GBIF Data Portal. GBIF also operates the GBIF Communications Portal (http://www.gbif.org/) which provides information about the organisation and its activities. An opportunity is provided on the last page of this survey to comment on the GBIF's use of two separate portals. Thank you for your help. Donald --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern(a)gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

First meeting to discuss a common TDWG standards architecture
by Roger Hyam 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

The first meeting to discuss a common TDWG standards architecture will take place on 11-13th April in Edinburgh. This meeting addresses one of the agreed outcomes of the TDWG Infrastructure Project. There was strong endorsement of the need to seek a common architecture that would relate the different standards developed by TDWG to each other and to those produced by third parties. You can read about the meeting at: http://www.tdwg.hyam.net/twiki/bin/view/TAG/TagMeeting1 and a preliminary agenda at: http://www.tdwg.hyam.net/twiki/bin/view/TAG/TagMeeting1Agenda This meeting will produce a report containing clear statements about the current technical relationships of TDWG standards and recommendations for an effective and integrated standard's architecture. This report will be presented to the TDWG Executive Committee and then widely circulated. If you have any ideas you would like raised at the meeting please either: 1. Post them to the TAG mailing list (http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org) 2. Send them directly to me. 3. Approach one of the other attendees - who are listed on the pages mentioned above. All input into this process would be most appreciated. All the best, Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Call for technical authors to assist TDWG subgroups
by Donald Hobern 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

TDWG is seeking an experienced (English language) Technical Author to develop a range of documentation to support its standards. The person will liaise with members of TDWG subgroups to design and develop informal documentation such as user-guides, primers, a web site, and assist with formal documentation suites. Applicants should have a university degree or equivalent. Experience with interoperability standards would be required and familiarity with TDWG would be an advantage. The work would be part time, and on a contract basis with the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org) Approximately 6 months full-time work equivalent would be anticipated over the next 18 months. While the work would be done at the contractor's location, some travel may be involved. Expressions of interest with a brief résumé should be forwarded to: Lee Belbin TDWG Infrastructure Project Manager lee(a)tdwg.org --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern(a)gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

None
by Charlene Fricker 09 Mar '06

09 Mar '06

set tdwg nomail Charlene Fricker ************************************************ Charlene Fricker Collections Manager, Fossil Invertebrates Geology Department The Field Museum 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60605-2496 312/665-7631 (direct) 312/665-7641 (fax) cfricker(a)fieldmuseum.org http://www.fmnh.org (Field Museum website)

1 0

Call for Participation: LSID Working Groups
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

TDWG/GBIF Call for Participation: Life Sciences Identifiers (LSID) Working Groups --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background ---------- The First Workshop on Globally Unique Identifiers for Biodiversity Informatics (GUID-1) was held last month at NESCent (www.nescent.org) in Durham, North Carolina, USA. The workshop was organized by the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (http://www.tdwg.org/) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org/) GUID-1 recommended the use of Life Sciences Identifiers (LSID) in biodiversity informatics and established two Working Groups to address outstanding questions (see http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/) Answers to those questions will be reported to a second GUID meeting (GUID-2) to be hosted by e-Science Institute (eSI) in Edinburgh scheduled for June 10-12 2006. Participation ------------- We have reached a significant point by establishing the infrastructure to support widespread use of LSIDs in biodiversity informatics. We are seeking anyone who is interested in participating in the two Working Groups. Please send an expression of interest in leading or contributing to any of the proposed tasks on the GUID wiki to guids(a)gbif.org. The tasks are listed on the following web pages: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=InfrastructureWorkingGroup and http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=PrototypingWorkingGroup If you can lead a task team, please edit the respective wiki page, adding your name as task coordinator and start to outline the task. If you want to be involved but not lead a task, contact the task leader if there is one, or edit the respective wiki page by adding your name to the task team and adding your contribution in the appropriate space. GUID-2 ------ The second GUID meeting will be supported by the TDWG Infrastructure Project funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Attendance at GUID-2 will be by invitation, based on contributions against the tasks. GUID-2 will focus on working sessions and attendance will be limited. Priority for support will be given to workgroup task leaders and others actively participating on task developments. Timeline -------- 17/Mar/2006: Definition of task leaders. Tasks not claimed will be pruned, reassigned or set aside for later consideration. 24/Mar/2006: Definition of task teams, task outlines, and work plan. 31/Mar/2006: Definition of GUID-2 participants based on task assignments. GBIF/TDWG will send formal invitations to participants. Mar/Apr/May/2006: Task development and discussion of outstanding issues, following work plan. May/2006: Finalization of prototypes, summary of discussions, draft of recommendations for each task. Preparation to present summary at GUID-2 Workshop. June/2006 - GUID-2 Workshop. Contacts -------- For further information, please send messages to guids(a)gbif.org, or contact any of the following- * Lee Belbin, Australia - Project Manager (lee(a)tdwg.org) * Donald Hobern, Denmark - Programmer Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability (dhobern(a)gbif.org) * Ricardo Pereira, Brazil - Software Engineer (ricardo(a)tdwg.org) * Roger Hyam, United Kingdom - Technical Architect (roger(a)tdwg.org)

1 0

SYTHESYS - final call for this round 17 March 2006
by Adrian Rissone 05 Mar '06

05 Mar '06

Dear Scientist, Next Deadline: 17th March 2006 The SYNTHESYS Office is pleased to announce the Fourth call for proposals under the European Commission's FPVI European-funded Integrated Infrastructure Initiative. SYNTHESYS Project funding is available to provide scientists (Users) based in European Member and Associated States to undertake short visits to utilize the infrastructure (namely the collections, staff expertise and analytical facilities) at one of the 20 partner institutions (see full list below) for the purposes of their research. The 20 partner institutions are organised into 11 national Taxonomic Facilities (TAFs). TAF Users will be hosted by a TAF staff member. The 11 TAF institutions represent an unparalleled resource for taxonomic research offering: Collections amounting to over 337 million natural history specimens, including 3.3 million type specimens. Internationally renowned taxonomic and systematic skill base· Chemical analysis, molecular and imaging facilities. Proposals will be welcomed from high calibre researchers seeking access for short-term visits. SYNTHESYS is able to meet the Users' costs for: · Research costs* · International travel · Local accommodation whilst based at the TAF · A per diem to contribute towards living costs * Research related costs including: bench fees and consumables (including molecular biology at some TAFs). See www.synthesys.info for more information or contact synthesys(a)nhm.ac.uk TAF visits will be scheduled from December 2004 until January 2009. SYNTHESYS is a five-year project comprising two parts which together aim to create an integrated European infrastructure for researchers in the natural sciences. SYNTHESYS Partners: GB-TAF Natural History Museum, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. ES-TAF Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Real Jardín Botánico Naturales. DK-TAF The Natural History Museum of Denmark. FR-TAF Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. SE-TAF Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet. NL-TAF University van Amsterdam, Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, National Natural History Museum Naturalis. DE-TAF Museum fur Naturkunde, Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum. AT-TAF Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien. HU-TAF Hungarian Natural History Museum. PL-TAF Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences. BE-TAF Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Koninklijik Museum voor Midden-Afrika, National Botanic Garden of Belgium. 1 The SYNTHESYS Partners are inviting applications from researchers based in the Member States of the EU: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom plus the Associated Countries of the EU: Switzerland, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway and Candidate Countries of the EU Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Gemma Robinson SYNTHESYS Administrator Natural History Museum Cromwell Rd London SW7 5BD tel: +44 (0)20 7942 6075 fax: +44 (0)20 7942 5841 www.synthesys.info

1 0

Re: TDWG Digest - 27 Feb 2006 to 28 Feb 2006 (#2006-7)
by Emery, Rob 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

I'm not sure if its a help but in our reference collection database we store start and end dates for collection as separate day, month and year. We then concatenate these fields to give a sensible-looking date. Sorting is a little more complicated and must be nested. This approach allows us to accurately reflect the detail on many old labels which read simply "June 1927". -------------------------------------------------- Rob Emery (Mr) (Senior Entomologist) ph: 61 8 9368 3247 Fax: 61 8 9368 3223 Mob: 0404 819 601 mailto:remery@agric.wa.gov.au http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/ento Department of Agriculture Western Australia 3 Baron-Hay Court, _-_|\ South Perth, 6151 / \ Western Australia --> \_.-._/ v -----Original Message----- From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2006 2:00 PM To: Recipients of TDWG digests Subject: TDWG Digest - 27 Feb 2006 to 28 Feb 2006 (#2006-7) There are 5 messages totalling 1039 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Dates and Times (3) 2. Standards for date / time values? (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:12:02 -0800 From: list.tdwg(a)ACHAPMAN.ORG Subject: Dates and Times This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/long) with an uncertainty surrounding that location. With location, we are currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a locality, where as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of polygons and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave that discussion for another time. Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situations be to use a midpoint with an uncertainty. Thus for "01-2000" we should not interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with an uncertainty of 15 (or 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation of time. This is, of course, not all that dis-similar to what michael is suggesting. On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be "accurately" determined - but the actual time of occurrence is uncertain. I thus prefer the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly better (as we will most likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices document under preparation) - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps "Maximum uncertainty estimate" Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times - if so I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for consistency of approach if possible. Cheers Arthur Arthur D. Chapman Australian Biodiversity Information Services Toowoomba, Australia >From Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> on 27 Feb 2006: > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Standards for date / time values? (3) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +0100 > From: Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG> > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the > label about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions > arise of the interpretation. > > Btw., isn't he name of the element "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > Core v.1.4 proposal a bit misleading as it really is > "EarliestDateTimeCollected"? > > Hannu > > Richard Pyle wrote: > > >RE: CollectingDatesInterpreted > >When would this field *not* be set to true? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:58:54 -0500 > From: Michael Lee <mikelee(a)EMAIL.UNC.EDU> > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > Hello all, > > It seems to me that the VerbatimDate/EarliestDate/LatestDate are > helpful, but combine two separate issues: > > 1) duration of the event spanning more than one date/time unit > 2) error associated with the date. > > Is the distinction useful? Probably depends on your application of > the date. > > To handle these, VegBank uses three fields: > > startDateTime > stopDateTime > dateTimeAccuracy > (note that there is NO verbatimDate) > > StartDateTime is most precise known date/time for the beginning of an > event (in our case an observation of a vegetation plot) and the > EndDateTime is the end date/time (which could have the same value). > DateTimeAccuracy is a string with a list of values ranging from 1 > second to 1 day to 1 year to 5,10 years, etc. > > start and stop deal with issue #1 above, duration (potentially) > exceeding usual date description precision. > > The accuracy field deals with isue #2 above, error or uncertainty > regarding the dates. It is this accuracy field that seems to be > missing from this discussion thus far. > > As far as time zones go, error on the order of hours isn't TOO > important to us, so we don't worry about it too much. But I think > what we're aiming to do is to store the date/time according to UTC. > This means that to reconstruct what time the person saw something, the > original time zone and > Daylight Savings Time would need to be known, but this isn't crucial to > us, either. > > I like Lynn's list of weird dates, so I'll throw in what we'd do with > them (this of course being "interpreted" but as Rich says, that's > almost always > the case): > > PRE-1975 > Start:null ; End: 01-JAN-1975 ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > value post-1992 > Start: 01-Jan-1992; End:null ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > value > summer 2001 > Start: 15-JUL-2001; End:15-JUL-2001 ; Accuracy: 1.5 months > Mid-1990s > Start: 01-JUL-1995; End: 01-JUL-1995 ; Accuracy: 2 years > late 1950's > Start: 01-JAN-1958; End: 01-JAN-1958; Accuracy: 2.5 years > Circa 1941 > Start: 01-JUL-1941; End:01-JUL-1941; Accuracy: 6 months > Early 1990s > Start: 01-JAN-1992; End:01-JAN-1992; Accuracy: 2 years > > Except for the "pre-Date" and "post-Date" I have assumed a relatively > short duration. But this is interpreted. The problems with this > approach I see are: > 1) accuracy for start and stop dates could be different > 2) accuracy is not a black and white idea. It's often more of a > gradient. Seems > illogical to specify 10 years as accuracy in the first 2 examples, as > the > dates could be much more than 10 years away. > 3) a closed list on accuracy seems to force you into decisions you don't === message truncated === ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:17:49 -1000 From: Richard Pyle <deepreef(a)BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? Hannu wrote: > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the > label about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions > arise of the interpretation. I had assumed that the CollectingDatesInterpreted value referred to the Earliest/Latest values; not the Verbatim value. I would tend to equate null/empty values for the Earliest/Latest fields to be equivalent to "Not Interpreted"; and assume that all non-null values in thes two fields to be, by definition, interpreted. Michael Lee wrote: > It seems to me that the VerbatimDate/EarliestDate/LatestDate are > helpful, but combine two separate issues: > > 1) duration of the event spanning more than one date/time unit > 2) error associated with the date. These are two of several possible meanings of two date values that I tried to qualify with my "DateRangeQualifier" attribute. There are actually a number of possible meanings/interpretations for a pair of date/time values, but in most cases, one could interpret a date range as either of the following: - Event spanned entire range - Event occurred at a single point in time somewhere within this range (Same as what you said, but stated in a different way.) However, I prefer to view the Earliest/Latest pair of values to have the specific meaning of "collection event did not likely begin prior to [Earliest], and did not likely end after [Latest]". In other words, I view it as always meaning, with some degree of certainty, "collection event took place within this window of time", independently of the duration of the event itself. If "Duration" of sampling event is imporant (e.g., plankton tow), I think it might best be documented secondarily, elsewhere. It could be handled with something like dateTimeAccuracy; but it seems to me that you would then have two subjective values (the scale of dateTimeAccuracy seems like it's subjectively defined?) Arthur wrote: > This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat > dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two > places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. I think there are many parallels, and you could manage Date values analagously to the MaNIS protocol for establishing georef coordinates with max error. But my feeling is that this would be overkill except in very specific use-cases involving seasonally critical datasets, or organisms with large-scale temporal cycles. I think in most use-cases, verbatim/Earliest/Latest provides most of the information that most of the people are interested in. Which leads me to... Roger wrote: > Who is using data scored like this - actually searching on and > analyzing data that was scored to 'summer', 'autumn', 'early 19th > century' > > This thread seems to be a great deal about how to capture data from various > historic sources but what are the use cases for exploitation of it? Use cases I deal with are things like establishing first/last known occurences of taxon X at locality Y; tracking down patterns of (long-term) periodicity in taxon occurance, and establishing patterns of seasonality (among others). The reason I feel that the three Verbatim/InterpretedEarliest/InterpretedLatest set covers me is that the first one really represents the *actual* [meta]data, whereas the other two are useful for getting a computer to sort & filter chronomogically. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:25:08 -1000 From: Richard Pyle <deepreef(a)BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? This is why I define the two "interpreted" date/time values as as I described in my previous note. Something like "Apr. 75" gets recorded exactly as such in the Verbatim field, and the Earliest/Latest interpreted values would be 1975-04-01 and 1975-04-30 (in whatever standard format is preferred). Time seems to me to simply be higher-resolution precision of the same information (in the same way that a day is higher resolution than a month). The problem comes when you want to record "Summer, unknown year" and "18:30-19:00, unknown date". The season and time of day might be important, even if lower-precision data are not available (which year the season, or which date the time range). But my hunch is that these fall outside the 90% value/90% cases -- at least in my experience. Aloha, Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group List > [mailto:TDWG@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Patricia Koleff Osorio > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:02 AM > To: TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > We should be clear on format for Early and Latest CollectionDate, > meaning to store data as DDMMYYYY There are some old specimens missing > the day or even the month (and only have years, and even not the > complete year, only the like 79) I think that time hour should be > another field, noting that must be refered > to the locality > Regards > Patricia Koleff > > > At 12:00 a.m. 24/02/2006 -1000, Richard Pyle wrote: > >RE: CollectingDatesInterpreted > >When would this field *not* be set to true? In other words, what is > >the threshold for "interpreted", in terms of populating > EarliestCollectingDate > >and LatestCollectingDate? > > > >At one extreme, we have a VerbatimDateTime of "12 January 2005, > >13:34:15 local time". Not a lot of interpretation needed there > >(other than conversion of original documentation format to > >ASCII/Unicode, and interpretation of the time zone from the locality > >data). But > conversion of > >"12 January 2005" to > > > >EarliestCollectingDate: "2005-01-12 00:00:00" > >LatestCollectingDate: "2005-01-12 23:59:59" > > > >...requires a bit of interpretation. Maybe the time portion > could simply be > >omitted; but even still, there is technically *some* interpretation > >when converting "January" to "01". > > > >And the spectrum continues on from there up until, well, stuff > that would be > >unambiguously flagged as "interpreted". > > > >My point is, there should be some sort of guideline as to when to set > >CollectingDatesInterpreted true; i.e., what threshold of > >interpretation triggers that field. If such a guideline already > >exists, then I apologize for missing it. > > > >Personally, I don't think CollectingDatesInterpreted is > necessary, really, > >because I have always regarded my equivalents of > EarliestCollectingDate and > >LatestCollectingDate as interpreted. > > > >RE: Lynn's examples below. > >I wrestled with these issues (and more) a number of years ago. Other > >examples include "Summer; year unknown" (important for seasonal > >species), and multiple (non-contiguous) date ranges: "May or August, > >2004" -- among others. > > > >In addition to the equivalents of VerbatimDateTime, > EarliestCollectingDate, > >LatestCollectingDate; I had a controlled-vocabulary field called > >"DateRangeQualifier", which had an enumerated list of options tied to > >interpretation logic (e.g., "continuous range", "discontinuous > >range", "unknown point", "either/or", etc.; as well as sub-range > >qualifiers like "Summer"). I modelled it after an analogous field I > >use for interpreting paired or multiple georef coordinates (e.g., > >"transect" vs. > "bounding box"; > >"polygon" vs. "linear"). This DateRangeQualifier approach ended > up being too > >cumbersome to implement -- only because I was too lazy, and the > >number of cases that benefited from it (i.e., allowed computer logic > >to be applied, independent of a human reading of the VerbatimDateTime > >value) was low. > > > >The three fields > >VerbatimDateTime/EarliestCollectingDate/LatestCollectingDate > will give you > >90% of the value 90% of the time (at least for the > specimen/observation data > >that I deal with). I wonder if DWC really needs more precision > >capability than that.... > > > >Rich > > > >Richard L. Pyle, PhD > >Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences > >Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum > >1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 > >Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 > >email: deepreef(a)bishopmuseum.org > >http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group List > >[mailto:TDWG@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Lynn Kutner > >Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:26 PM > >To: TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > >Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > > >Hi Stan and all - > > > >Yes, I am thinking about dates in the context of the observation / > >monitoring schema. > > > >Here are some of the types of dates that I've seen in just the > data from the > >NatureServe member programs based on either lack of available > information or > >interesting data collection situations. > > > >1) partial dates (only have the year or year-month) - definitely > >accommodated by the ISO 8601 format > > > >2) vague dates - for these I suppose you'd use ISO 8601 in > >EarliestCollectingDate / LatestCollectingDate, VerbatimDateTime, and > >the CollectingDatesInterpreted flag ? > > > >PRE-1975 > >post-1992 > >summer 2001 > >Mid-1990s > >late 1950's > >Circa 1941 > >Early 1990s > > > >3) a range of dates indicating that collection occurred on a > specific date > >sometime between those two limits and you're not sure when (example: > >Observations / collections from pitfall traps may have date ranges > >associated with them rather than a single date. For instance, > you can have > >dates of collection of 19Dec 2004 to 23Jan 2005 and the specimen was > >from some unknown specific date in that rage), > > > >4) continuous data collection over a period of time (some sort of > >sensor) > > > >5) information collected on one of two possible dates (one or > the other is > >correct, it's not a range) (example: aerial surveys flown on > either May 27 > >or June 04, 1999). > > > >It seems that EarliestCollectingDate / LatestCollectingDate could be > >used for #3, #4, and #5 - but is there a way to differentiate between > >these as actually being very different types of dates? Would those > distinctions just > >be communicated using the VerbatimDateTime? > > > >Of course for all of these examples the fallback would be to use the > >VerbatimDateTime, but it would be ideal to have as much as > possible of the > >date information in field(s) that can be queried and analyzed > > > >Thank you for your thoughts and help. > > > >Lynn > > > > > > > >Lynn Kutner > >NatureServe > >www.natureserve.org > >(303) 541-0360 > >lynn_kutner(a)natureserve.org > > > > > > > >From: Blum, Stan [mailto:sblum@calacademy.org] > >Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 6:41 PM > >To: Lynn Kutner; TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > >Subject: RE: Standards for date / time values? > > > > > >Hi Lynn, > > > >Context is everything, so I'm going to assume you are talking about > >date/time representations in the observation and monitoring > schema(s) that > >you are developing. The thinking in the collections community has > >gone something along the lines of this: > > > >Concept: the date-time of a collecting event [= recording-event, > >gathering-event] -- i.e., when one or more organisms were collected > >or observed -- expressed in the common Gregorian calendar, in local > >time. > > > >Requirements: > > > >1 - express the data/time exactly as it was recorded > >2 - retreive records by date/time ranges (date-time greater than X > >and/or less than Y) 3 - accommodate date-times of varying precision, > >including explicit date-time ranges (specifying a duration) > >4 - support seasonal (time of year) queries > > > >These requirements can be met by the following fields: > > > >VerbatimDateTime > >EarliestDateCollected > >LatestDateCollected > >CollectingDatesInterpreted > >DayOfYear > > > >As John Wieczorek noted, the ISO 8601 format accommodates > varying degrees of > >precision. Using a "verbatim date-time" [text string] is as > good as you can > >do to satisfy the first requirement, short of scanning field > notes or voice > >recordings. The earliest and latest dates support the recording > of explicit > >ranges as well as interpreted ranges, which could be used to > make "Summer of > >1952" retrievable. The CollectingDatesInterpreted field would > be a boolean > >field, set as true when the earliest and latest dates represent > >interpretations rather than an explicit range. The "DayOfYear" > field is a > >compromise that we've offered as a simple way to support queries > involving > >seasonal (annual) cycles; e.g., collected in the northern > summer, regardless > >of year. But it can be argued that day of year is derivable > from the other > >fields (unless year is unknown), and that it doesn't accommodate > >explicit ranges. > > > >A bit more documentation is needed to address the odd cases (What do > >I do when ...?), but these five fields will support a lot of the data > >exchange needed for this concept. These fields are not intended to > handle the dating > >of localities in paleontology, nor are they intended to handle > named periods > >that are used in cultural collections (e.g., Iron Age, Victorian). > > > >ABCD uses a few more fields to handle the concept, > >http://ww3.bgbm.org/abcddocs/AbcdConcepts but some of these (date, > >time, and time zone) are handled by the ISO format, except when the > larger units > >are unkown; .e.g., the year is unknown, but the day is [ June 16 > ]; or the > >date is unknown, but the time is [ 14:00-15:30 ]. > > > >AbcdConcept0860 /DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime > >AbcdConcept0861 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/DateText > >AbcdConcept0862 /DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/TimeZone > >AbcdConcept0863 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/ISODateTimeBegin > >AbcdConcept0864 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/DayNumberBegin > >AbcdConcept0865 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/TimeOfDayBegin > >AbcdConcept0866 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/ISODateTimeEnd > >AbcdConcept0867 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/DayNumberEnd > >AbcdConcept0868 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/TimeOfDayEnd > >AbcdConcept0869 > >/DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/Gathering/DateTime/PeriodExplicit > >The ABCD fields pretty much cover the entire concept space. One > could argue > >whether time-zone is relevant to the description of biological > >phenomena, but we do know that ship trawls do cross time-zones > >(including the date-line), and that daylight savings time could > >stretch or compress some nocturnal collecting events if their > >durations were calculated > too simply. > > > >To some extent these arguments are still going on, so analyze your > >requirements and your data, then state your position. ;-) > > > >Cheers, > > > >-Stan > >Stanley D. Blum, Ph.D. > >Research Information Manager > >California Academy of Sciences > >875 Howard St. > >San Francisco, CA > >+1 (415) 321-8183 > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group List > >[mailto:TDWG@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Lynn Kutner > >Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:12 AM > >To: TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > >Subject: Standards for date / time values? > > > > > >Hi - > >I'm working with a suite of date attributes that can include a > combination > >of precise dates, imprecise dates, and ranges of dates (and the > same types > >of time values). We'd like to follow existing standards. If this sort > >of date / time standard exists, I'd appreciate leads to the > >appropriate resources. Thank you for your help - > >Lynn > > > > > >Lynn Kutner > >Data Management Coordinator > >NatureServe > >Email: lynn_kutner(a)natureserve.org > >Phone: (303) 541-0360 > >www.natureserve.org > > Dra. Patricia Koleff > Directora de Análisis y Prioridades > CONABIO > Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad Av. > Liga Periferico - Insurgentes Sur 4903 Col. Parques del Pedregal > Delegacion Tlalpan > 14010 Mexico, D.F. > MEXICO > Tel. +52 (55) 5528 9105 > Fax +52 (55) 5528 9194 > www.conabio.gob.mx > e-mail: pkoleff(a)xolo.conabio.gob.mx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:56:09 -0800 From: "John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco(a)BERKELEY.EDU> Subject: Re: Dates and Times ------=_Part_17545_1395380.1141142169842 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline As a unabashed proponent of the Point-Radius Method I have to confess that = I was tempted to try exactly what Arthur is proposing here, and for the same reason - a consistent way of dealing with uncertain measures. But I didn't like the result. The basic reason is that the single date value plus duration (before and after) can't capture the situation where the uncertainties on the two ends of the duration differ. In other words, it can't capture "definitely before midnight local time, 2 May 2000." On 2/27/06, list.tdwg(a)achapman.org <list.tdwg(a)achapman.org> wrote: > > This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat > dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two > places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. > > At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/long) > with an uncertainty surrounding that location. With location, we are > currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a locality, > wher= e > as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of > polygons and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave > that discussi= on > for another time. > > Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situations > be to use a midpoint with an uncertainty. Thus for "01-2000" we > should not interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with an > uncertainty of 15 = (or > 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation of time. This is, of > course, not all that dis-similar to what michael is suggesting. > > On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be > "accurately" determined - but the actual time of occurrence is > uncertain. I thus pref= er > the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly better (as we will most > likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices document under > preparatio= n) > - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps "Maximum uncertainty estimate" > > Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times - > if s= o > I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for > consiste= ncy > of approach if possible. > > Cheers > > Arthur > > Arthur D. Chapman > Australian Biodiversity Information Services > Toowoomba, Australia > > From Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> on 27 > Feb > 2006: > > > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > > > > Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Standards for date / time values? (3) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +0100 > > From: Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the > > label about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions > > arise of th= e > > interpretation. > > > > Btw., isn't he name of the element "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > > Core v.1.4 proposal a bit misleading as it really is > > "EarliestDateTimeCollected"? > > > > Hannu > > > > Richard Pyle wrote: > > > > >RE: CollectingDatesInterpreted > > >When would this field *not* be set to true? > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:58:54 -0500 > > From: Michael Lee <mikelee(a)EMAIL.UNC.EDU> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > Hello all, > > > > It seems to me that the VerbatimDate/EarliestDate/LatestDate are > > helpful, but combine two separate issues: > > > > 1) duration of the event spanning more than one date/time unit > > 2) error associated with the date. > > > > Is the distinction useful? Probably depends on your application of > > the date. > > > > To handle these, VegBank uses three fields: > > > > startDateTime > > stopDateTime > > dateTimeAccuracy > > (note that there is NO verbatimDate) > > > > StartDateTime is most precise known date/time for the beginning of > > an event (in our case an observation of a vegetation plot) and the > > EndDateTime is the end date/time (which could have the same value). > > DateTimeAccuracy is a string with a list of values ranging from 1 > > secon= d > > to 1 day to 1 year to 5,10 years, etc. > > > > start and stop deal with issue #1 above, duration (potentially) > > exceeding usual date description precision. > > > > The accuracy field deals with isue #2 above, error or uncertainty > > regarding the dates. It is this accuracy field that seems to be > > missin= g > > from this discussion thus far. > > > > As far as time zones go, error on the order of hours isn't TOO > > importan= t > > to us, so we don't worry about it too much. But I think what we're > > aiming to do is to store the date/time according to UTC. This means > > that to reconstruct what time the person saw something, the original > > time zone and > > Daylight Savings Time would need to be known, but this isn't crucial to > > us, either. > > > > I like Lynn's list of weird dates, so I'll throw in what we'd do > > with them (this of course being "interpreted" but as Rich says, > > that's almost always > > the case): > > > > PRE-1975 > > Start:null ; End: 01-JAN-1975 ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > > value post-1992 > > Start: 01-Jan-1992; End:null ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > > value > > summer 2001 > > Start: 15-JUL-2001; End:15-JUL-2001 ; Accuracy: 1.5 months > > Mid-1990s > > Start: 01-JUL-1995; End: 01-JUL-1995 ; Accuracy: 2 years > > late 1950's > > Start: 01-JAN-1958; End: 01-JAN-1958; Accuracy: 2.5 years > > Circa 1941 > > Start: 01-JUL-1941; End:01-JUL-1941; Accuracy: 6 months > > Early 1990s > > Start: 01-JAN-1992; End:01-JAN-1992; Accuracy: 2 years > > > > Except for the "pre-Date" and "post-Date" I have assumed a > > relatively short duration. But this is interpreted. The problems > > with this approach I see are: > > 1) accuracy for start and stop dates could be different > > 2) accuracy is not a black and white idea. It's often more of a > > gradient. Seems > > illogical to specify 10 years as accuracy in the first 2 examples, as > > the > > dates could be much more than 10 years away. > > 3) a closed list on accuracy seems to force you into decisions you don'= t > > =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D > ------=_Part_17545_1395380.1141142169842 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>As a unabashed proponent of the Point-Radius Method I have to confess = that I was tempted to try exactly what Arthur is proposing here, and for th= e same reason - a consistent way of dealing with uncertain measures. But I = didn't like the result. The basic reason is that the single date value plus= duration (before and after) can't capture the situation where the uncertai= nties on the two ends of the duration differ. In other words, it can't capt= ure "definitely before midnight local time, 2 May 2000." </div> <div>  </div> <div>On 2/27/06, = <a href=3D"mailto:list.tdwg@achapman.org">list.tdwg(a)achapman.org</a> &l= t;<a href=3D"mailto:list.tdwg@achapman.org">list.tdwg(a)achapman.org</a>> = wrote: <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">This is an interesting discussio= n, and I am wondering why we treat dates/times differently to localities wh= ere we may have "between two places", "near a place", &= quot;along a path", etc. At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/lo= ng) with an uncertainty surrounding that location.  With location= , we are currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a localit= y, where as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of p= olygons and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave that di= scussion for another time. Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situatio= ns be to use a midpoint with an uncertainty.  Thus for "01-2= 000" we should not interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with= an uncertainty of 15 (or 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation = of time.  This is, of course, not all that dis-similar to what mi= chael is suggesting. On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be "= accurately" determined - but the actual time of occurrence is uncertai= n.  I thus prefer the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly = better (as we will most likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices doc= ument under preparation) - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps &quot= ;Maximum uncertainty estimate" Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times = - if so I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for co= nsistency of approach if possible. Cheers Arthur Arthu= r D. Chapman Australian Biodiversity Information Services Toowoomba, Australia<br= > From Automatic digest processor <<a href=3D"mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSER= V.NHM.KU.EDU">LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</a>> on 27 Feb 2006: > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > &gt= ; Topics of the day: > >   1. Standards for date / ti= me values? (3) > > --------------------------------------------= -------------------------- > > Date:    Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +01= 00 > From:    Hannu Saarenmaa <<a href=3D"mail= to:hsaarenmaa@GBIF.ORG">hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG</a>> > Subject: Re: St= andards for date / time values? > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be = just a text > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatev= er is written in the label > about the dates and times.  Th= is can be useful if questions arise of the > interpretation. > > Btw., isn't he name of the element= "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > Core v.1.4 proposal a = bit misleading as it really is > "EarliestDateTimeCollected&quot= ;? > > Hannu > > Richard Pyle wrote: > > = >RE: CollectingDatesInterpreted > >When would this field *not* = be set to true? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date:    Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:58:54 -05= 00 > From:    Michael Lee <<a href=3D"mailto:m= ikelee(a)EMAIL.UNC.EDU">mikelee(a)EMAIL.UNC.EDU</a>> > Subject: Re: St= andards for date / time values? > > Hello all, > > It seems to me that the VerbatimDate/Ea= rliestDate/LatestDate are > helpful, but combine two separate issues:= > > 1) duration of the event spanning more than one date/time = unit > 2) error associated with the date. > > Is the distinct= ion useful?  Probably depends on your application of the > = date. > > To handle these, VegBank uses three fields: ><b= r>> startDateTime > stopDateTime > dateTimeAccuracy > (note that there is = NO verbatimDate) > > StartDateTime is most precise known date/t= ime for the beginning of an > event (in our case an observation of a = vegetation plot) and the > EndDateTime is the end date/time (which could have the same value)= . > DateTimeAccuracy is a string with a list of values ranging from 1= second > to 1 day to 1 year to 5,10 years, etc. > > star= t and stop deal with issue #1 above, duration (potentially) > exceeding > usual date description precision. > &gt= ; The accuracy field deals with isue #2 above, error or uncertainty >= regarding the dates.  It is this accuracy field that seems to be= missing > from this discussion thus far. > > As far as time zone= s go, error on the order of hours isn't TOO important > to us, so we = don't worry about it too much.  But I think what we're > ai= ming > to do is to store the date/time according to UTC.  This mean= s that to > reconstruct what time the person saw something, the origi= nal time zone > and > Daylight Savings Time would need to be kn= own, but this isn't crucial to > us, either. > > I like Lynn's list of weird dates, so = I'll throw in what we'd do with > them > (this of course being = "interpreted" but as Rich says, that's almost > always > the case): > > PRE-1975 >   Start:null ; E= nd: 01-JAN-1975 ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > value > = post-1992 >   Start: 01-Jan-1992; End:null ; Accuracy: null= or possibly a large > value > summer 2001 >   Start: 15-JUL-2001; = End:15-JUL-2001 ; Accuracy: 1.5 months > Mid-1990s > &nbsp= ; Start: 01-JUL-1995; End: 01-JUL-1995 ; Accuracy: 2 years > late 195= 0's >   Start: 01-JAN-1958; End: 01-JAN-1958; Accuracy:=20 2.5 years > Circa 1941 >   Start: 01-JUL-1941; End:01= -JUL-1941; Accuracy: 6 months > Early 1990s >   Start= : 01-JAN-1992; End:01-JAN-1992; Accuracy: 2 years > > Except fo= r the "pre-Date" and "post-Date" I have assumed a relat= ively > short duration.  But this is interpreted.  The= problems with this > approach > I see are: > 1) accuracy= for start and stop dates could be different > 2) accuracy is not a b= lack and white idea.  It's often more of a > gradient. Seems > illogical to specify 10 years as accuracy = in the first 2 examples, as > the > dates could be much more th= an 10 years away. > 3) a closed list on accuracy seems to force you i= nto decisions you don't =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D </blockquote></div> ------=_Part_17545_1395380.1141142169842-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:04:48 -0800 From: list.tdwg(a)ACHAPMAN.ORG Subject: Re: Dates and Times Philip and John have convinced me that it is better to use the start/end date/time approach rather than the mid-point and uncertainty approach. Philip's arguments are very convincing. Cheers Arthur >From Philip.Gleeson(a)environment.nsw.gov.au on 27 Feb 2006: > I think the important point to remember in all of this is that time is > linear and this allows for a simplified approach that is more difficult > to apply in a 2-dimensional spatial situation. Where the boundaries of a > > time interval are known the two approaches are identical and require two > > data points to accurately specify the range. However, what of the > situation where only one data point is known? It often occurs that one > knows that a collection took place prior to a given date, or equally one > > may know that a collection occurred after a given date with no other > information. This is easily catered for when a start and end datetime > are > used, but if a middle point and an accuracy have to be specified on an > unbounded time interval, how do you do this? In contrast, I am not aware > > of any cases in collections where one has an accurate midpoint but is > unsure of how far either side of this date the collection occurred. For > this reason alone I would tend to lean towards the use of start and end > dates over the alternative approach of a mid point and an accuracy as > the > latter can always be calculated from the former. > > Philip Gleeson > > Wildlife Data Officer > Policy & Science Division > Department of Environment & Conservation > 43 Bridge St, Hurstville NSW 2220 > Ph: 9585 6694 > > > > > list.tdwg(a)ACHAPMAN.ORG > Sent by: Taxonomic Databases Working Group List > <TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> > 28/02/06 18:12 > Please respond to list.tdwg > > > To: TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > cc: > Subject: Dates and Times > > > This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat > dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two > places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. > > At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/long) > with an uncertainty surrounding that location. With location, we are > currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a locality, > where > as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of > polygons > and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave that > discussion for another time. > > Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situations be > > to use a midpoint with an uncertainty. Thus for "01-2000" we should not > > interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with an uncertainty of 15 > > (or 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation of time. This is, > of > course, not all that dis-similar to what michael is suggesting. > > On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be > "accurately" > determined - but the actual time of occurrence is uncertain. I thus > prefer the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly better (as we will > > most likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices document under > preparation) - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps "Maximum uncertainty > estimate" > > Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times - if > so > I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for > consistency of approach if possible. > > Cheers > > Arthur > > Arthur D. Chapman > Australian Biodiversity Information Services > Toowoomba, Australia > > From Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> on 27 Feb > > 2006: > > > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > > > > Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Standards for date / time values? (3) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +0100 > > From: Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the > label > > about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions arise of > the > > interpretation. > > > > Btw., isn't he name of the element "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > > Core v.1.4 proposal a bit misleading as it really is > > "EarliestDateTimeCollected"? > > > > Hannu > > === message truncated === ------------------------------ End of TDWG Digest - 27 Feb 2006 to 28 Feb 2006 (#2006-7) ********************************************************* This e-mail and files transmitted with it are privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the addressee. The confidentiality and/or privilege in this e-mail is not waived, lost or destroyed if it has been transmitted to you in error. If you received this e-mail in error you must (a) not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it; (b) please notify the Department of Agriculture immediately by return e-mail to the sender; (c) please delete the original e-mail.

1 0

Re: Dates and Times
by list.tdwg＠ACHAPMAN.ORG 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Philip and John have convinced me that it is better to use the start/end date/time approach rather than the mid-point and uncertainty approach. Philip's arguments are very convincing. Cheers Arthur >From Philip.Gleeson(a)environment.nsw.gov.au on 27 Feb 2006: > I think the important point to remember in all of this is that time is > linear and this allows for a simplified approach that is more difficult > to apply in a 2-dimensional spatial situation. Where the boundaries of a > > time interval are known the two approaches are identical and require two > > data points to accurately specify the range. However, what of the > situation where only one data point is known? It often occurs that one > knows that a collection took place prior to a given date, or equally one > > may know that a collection occurred after a given date with no other > information. This is easily catered for when a start and end datetime > are > used, but if a middle point and an accuracy have to be specified on an > unbounded time interval, how do you do this? In contrast, I am not aware > > of any cases in collections where one has an accurate midpoint but is > unsure of how far either side of this date the collection occurred. For > this reason alone I would tend to lean towards the use of start and end > dates over the alternative approach of a mid point and an accuracy as > the > latter can always be calculated from the former. > > Philip Gleeson > > Wildlife Data Officer > Policy & Science Division > Department of Environment & Conservation > 43 Bridge St, Hurstville NSW 2220 > Ph: 9585 6694 > > > > > list.tdwg(a)ACHAPMAN.ORG > Sent by: Taxonomic Databases Working Group List > <TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> > 28/02/06 18:12 > Please respond to list.tdwg > > > To: TDWG(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > cc: > Subject: Dates and Times > > > This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat > dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two > places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. > > At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/long) > with an uncertainty surrounding that location. With location, we are > currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a locality, > where > as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of > polygons > and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave that > discussion for another time. > > Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situations be > > to use a midpoint with an uncertainty. Thus for "01-2000" we should not > > interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with an uncertainty of 15 > > (or 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation of time. This is, > of > course, not all that dis-similar to what michael is suggesting. > > On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be > "accurately" > determined - but the actual time of occurrence is uncertain. I thus > prefer the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly better (as we will > > most likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices document under > preparation) - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps "Maximum uncertainty > estimate" > > Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times - if > so > I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for > consistency of approach if possible. > > Cheers > > Arthur > > Arthur D. Chapman > Australian Biodiversity Information Services > Toowoomba, Australia > > From Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> on 27 Feb > > 2006: > > > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > > > > Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Standards for date / time values? (3) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +0100 > > From: Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the > label > > about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions arise of > the > > interpretation. > > > > Btw., isn't he name of the element "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > > Core v.1.4 proposal a bit misleading as it really is > > "EarliestDateTimeCollected"? > > > > Hannu > > === message truncated ===

1 0

Re: Dates and Times
by John R. WIECZOREK 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

As a unabashed proponent of the Point-Radius Method I have to confess that I was tempted to try exactly what Arthur is proposing here, and for the same reason - a consistent way of dealing with uncertain measures. But I didn't like the result. The basic reason is that the single date value plus duration (before and after) can't capture the situation where the uncertainties on the two ends of the duration differ. In other words, it can't capture "definitely before midnight local time, 2 May 2000." On 2/27/06, list.tdwg(a)achapman.org <list.tdwg(a)achapman.org> wrote: > > This is an interesting discussion, and I am wondering why we treat > dates/times differently to localities where we may have "between two > places", "near a place", "along a path", etc. > > At this stage, we tend to recommend using a single location (lat/long) > with an uncertainty surrounding that location. With location, we are > currently using a circle to determine the uncertainty in a locality, where > as time is linear (and thus easier). We may change to the use of polygons > and uncertainty footprints at a later stage but let's leave that discussion > for another time. > > Would not the better way to handle some of these data/time situations be > to use a midpoint with an uncertainty. Thus for "01-2000" we should not > interpret that as 01-01-2000 but as 15-01-2000 with an uncertainty of 15 (or > 16) days - can be refined with the incorporation of time. This is, of > course, not all that dis-similar to what michael is suggesting. > > On a related issue - if we have two dates - the dates may be "accurately" > determined - but the actual time of occurrence is uncertain. I thus prefer > the use of the term uncertainty - and possibly better (as we will most > likely use in the Georeferencing Best Practices document under preparation) > - "Maximum Uncertainty" or perhaps "Maximum uncertainty estimate" > > Perhaps there are good reasons for using start and end dates/times - if so > I am happy to go along with that - but believe we should aim for consistency > of approach if possible. > > Cheers > > Arthur > > Arthur D. Chapman > Australian Biodiversity Information Services > Toowoomba, Australia > > From Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> on 27 Feb > 2006: > > > There are 3 messages totalling 562 lines in this issue. > > > > Topics of the day: > > > > 1. Standards for date / time values? (3) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:27:23 +0100 > > From: Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa(a)GBIF.ORG> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > In my understanding the "Not interpreted" case would be just a text > > string "DateTimeSourceText", repeating whatever is written in the label > > about the dates and times. This can be useful if questions arise of the > > interpretation. > > > > Btw., isn't he name of the element "EarliestDateCollected" in Darwin > > Core v.1.4 proposal a bit misleading as it really is > > "EarliestDateTimeCollected"? > > > > Hannu > > > > Richard Pyle wrote: > > > > >RE: CollectingDatesInterpreted > > >When would this field *not* be set to true? > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:58:54 -0500 > > From: Michael Lee <mikelee(a)EMAIL.UNC.EDU> > > Subject: Re: Standards for date / time values? > > > > Hello all, > > > > It seems to me that the VerbatimDate/EarliestDate/LatestDate are > > helpful, but combine two separate issues: > > > > 1) duration of the event spanning more than one date/time unit > > 2) error associated with the date. > > > > Is the distinction useful? Probably depends on your application of the > > date. > > > > To handle these, VegBank uses three fields: > > > > startDateTime > > stopDateTime > > dateTimeAccuracy > > (note that there is NO verbatimDate) > > > > StartDateTime is most precise known date/time for the beginning of an > > event (in our case an observation of a vegetation plot) and the > > EndDateTime is the end date/time (which could have the same value). > > DateTimeAccuracy is a string with a list of values ranging from 1 second > > to 1 day to 1 year to 5,10 years, etc. > > > > start and stop deal with issue #1 above, duration (potentially) > > exceeding > > usual date description precision. > > > > The accuracy field deals with isue #2 above, error or uncertainty > > regarding the dates. It is this accuracy field that seems to be missing > > from this discussion thus far. > > > > As far as time zones go, error on the order of hours isn't TOO important > > to us, so we don't worry about it too much. But I think what we're > > aiming > > to do is to store the date/time according to UTC. This means that to > > reconstruct what time the person saw something, the original time zone > > and > > Daylight Savings Time would need to be known, but this isn't crucial to > > us, either. > > > > I like Lynn's list of weird dates, so I'll throw in what we'd do with > > them > > (this of course being "interpreted" but as Rich says, that's almost > > always > > the case): > > > > PRE-1975 > > Start:null ; End: 01-JAN-1975 ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > > value > > post-1992 > > Start: 01-Jan-1992; End:null ; Accuracy: null or possibly a large > > value > > summer 2001 > > Start: 15-JUL-2001; End:15-JUL-2001 ; Accuracy: 1.5 months > > Mid-1990s > > Start: 01-JUL-1995; End: 01-JUL-1995 ; Accuracy: 2 years > > late 1950's > > Start: 01-JAN-1958; End: 01-JAN-1958; Accuracy: 2.5 years > > Circa 1941 > > Start: 01-JUL-1941; End:01-JUL-1941; Accuracy: 6 months > > Early 1990s > > Start: 01-JAN-1992; End:01-JAN-1992; Accuracy: 2 years > > > > Except for the "pre-Date" and "post-Date" I have assumed a relatively > > short duration. But this is interpreted. The problems with this > > approach > > I see are: > > 1) accuracy for start and stop dates could be different > > 2) accuracy is not a black and white idea. It's often more of a > > gradient. Seems > > illogical to specify 10 years as accuracy in the first 2 examples, as > > the > > dates could be much more than 10 years away. > > 3) a closed list on accuracy seems to force you into decisions you don't > > === message truncated === >

1 0