[tdwg-content] biostatus

[Kevin Richards]

This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular.  But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie

- taxon concept id
- biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
- biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
- date / temporal
- publication / source
- locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters

hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.

Kevin

________________________________
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen at gbif.org]
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m.
To: Blum, Stan
Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco at berkeley.edu; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus

We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=html

DR


On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:

OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise.  As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round.  I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y.  Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint.  That means...

The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time.  Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.

-Stan

________________________________________
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz<mailto:RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM
To: Blum, Stan; tuco at berkeley.edu<mailto:tuco at berkeley.edu>
Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org<mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus

<snip>

I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org<mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content



________________________________
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20090910/bbde7ffe/attachment.html