[tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)

Sun Oct 13 21:10:48 CEST 2013

Thanks, Dan.

Quite correct.  What I had in mind was a twin approach that supports
versioning of data.  For many resources, no one is making further updates to
the primary data.  Placing it in a repository with stable management of
identifiers and annotation services would allow the whole community to
collaborate in enhancing the data.  For data sets with active management at
source, good practice with identifiers would allow issuing of new versions
at regular intervals.  If every data set has a DOI and every record has a
unique id within that data set, we should be able to handle these issues.
Hybrid approaches with active offline management and community annotation
tools are more complex but not unachievable.  FilteredPush has been working
on some of this.  Standarising approaches to identifiers and annotations
would make it all work.

Donald

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Hobern - GBIF Director -  <mailto:dhobern at gbif.org> dhobern at gbif.org 

Global Biodiversity Information Facility  <http://www.gbif.org/>
http://www.gbif.org/ 

GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

Tel: +45 3532 1471  Mob: +45 2875 1471  Fax: +45 2875 1480

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Daniel Janzen [mailto:djanzen at sas.upenn.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 8:37 PM
To: Donald Hobern [GBIF]
Cc: 'Richard Pyle'; 'TDWG Content Mailing List'; 'Chuck Miller'
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new
Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)

Ahem.  These zipped up archives will be obsolete approximately 1 minute
after zipping, if not earlier.

How is it planned to update them as names change, names of localities
change, date and code and lat and long and collector and and and and and
field contents are corrected over the coming days, months, weeks and years?
And then when the new version of the database, field instrument output, etc.
is zipped up tomorrow, how will that replace the one zipped up the day
before, and already fed into the user community, along with its previous
versions of the field contents?  Which version of "my" database will the
harvester use?  My most recently zipped up and submitted, or the one from a
week ago or month ago or year ago?  If the db is zipped up, how will the
user annotate it and that annotation get back to the parent db?

Just a thought from out in a mud hole.

Smile.

Dan and Winnie

On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <dhobern at gbif.org> wrote:

Thanks, Rich.

Very pleased to see this.  With this encouragement, I'll say just a little
bit more about why I think this is a critical need.

I see the model I describe as the perfect real-world realisation of most of
the key components in the GBIO Framework (
<http://www.biodiversityinformatics.org/>
http://www.biodiversityinformatics.org/), as follows:

1.       Everyone zips up whatever data they have from each resource
(databases, field instruments, sequencers, data extracted from literature,
checklists, whatever) into a DwC Archive using whatever DwC elements they
can for data elements and describing other elements not currently recognised
in DwC (the GBIO DATA layer)

2.       These archives should be placed in repositories that offer basic
services (DOIs, annotation services, etc.) (the GBIO CULTURE layer)

3.       Harvesters assess the contents of each archive and determine what
views can be supported from the supplied elements (occurrence records for
GBIF, name usage records, species interactions, etc.) and catalogue these
views in relevant discovery indexes (GBIF, Catalogue of Life, TraitBank,
etc.) (the GBIO EVIDENCE layer)

4.       Users can at any time annotate elements in the archives to provide
mappings for (potentially more recently defined) DwC or other properties,
opening up new options for reuse

Donald

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Hobern - GBIF Director -  <mailto:dhobern at gbif.org> dhobern at gbif.org

Global Biodiversity Information Facility  <http://www.gbif.org/>
http://www.gbif.org/

GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

Tel: +45 3532 1471  Mob: +45 2875 1471  Fax: +45 2875 1480

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef@ <http://bishopmuseum.org>
bishopmuseum.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:49 PM
To: 'Donald Hobern [GBIF]'; 'TDWG Content Mailing List'
Cc: 'Chuck Miller'
Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new
Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)

Hi Donald,

MANY thanks for this!  And you are certainly not alone in your concerns
about these issues.  In fact, we have planned a Symposium for “Documenting
DarwinCore”

(
<https://mbgserv18.mobot.org/ocs/index.php/tdwg/2013/schedConf/trackPolicies
>
https://mbgserv18.mobot.org/ocs/index.php/tdwg/2013/schedConf/trackPolicies

#track11), and one of the four sessions (Session 3, to be precise) of the
symposium focuses exactly on this issue of basisOfRecord/dcterms:type/etc.

Another session (Session 2) will focus on proposed and
perhaps-to-be-proposed new classes (Individual, MaterialSample, Evidence),
and will start out with a series graphs illustrating the existing high-level
ontology and possible alternative high-level ontologies, as you indicate in
your items 3 & 4.

Aloha,

Rich

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
 <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
 <http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content>
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20131013/934c1790/attachment.html 