[tdwg-content] A proposal to improve Darwin Core for invasive species data

Wed May 25 03:17:58 CEST 2016

I think it is indeed worthwhile to have content standards to go with the
term definitions. Applce Core (now under renewed development at
https://github.com/tdwg/applecore) is a good example of this.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>
wrote:

> John,
>
> It’s interesting how long that text has been out there, and without much
> comment.  It seems to presume there is a binary situation: tightly
> controlled vocabulary that is exclusive or loosely controlled that is
> inclusive.   Maybe it’s time now to consider something additional in the
> middle.  We know a lot more about how the Darwin Core standard is being
> used, or at least have plenty of examples.  With the addition of use cases
> into the standards for terms, progress could be made on use-case-based
> standard vocabulary that could reduce the “garbage in/garbage out” problem
> that comes from being totally inclusive.
>
>
>
> TDWG standards in the 80s and 90s were a little more about controlled
> vocabulary and reducing garbage than they have been in the 00s and 10s.
> Maybe we should spend some time on that aspect of data exchange again and
> use cases could be a method.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tdwg-content [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Wieczorek
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:48 PM
>
> *To:* Quentin Groom
> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] A proposal to improve Darwin Core for
> invasive species data
>
>
>
> I would say that the primary factor driving the philosophy for loose
> controlled vocabulary recommendations is a desire to promote the stability
> of Darwin Core term definitions, because changes can be disruptive. Section
> 1.4 on the Simple Darwin Core page (
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm) gives further practical
> arguments for this stance. I have copied the relevant text here for
> convenience:
>
>
>
> "There is a difference between having data in a field and requiring that
> field to have a value from among a legal set of values. The Darwin Core is
> simple in that it has minimal restrictions on the contents of fields. The
> term comments give recommendations about the use of controlled vocabularies
> and how to structure content wherever appropriate. Data contributors are
> encouraged to follow these recommendations as well as possible. You might
> argue that having no restrictions will promote "dirty" data (data of low
> quality or dubious value). Consider the simple axiom "It's not what you
> have, but what you do with it that matters." If data restrictions were in
> place at the fundamental level, then a record having any non-compliant data
> in any of its fields could not be shared via the standard. Not only would
> there be a dearth of shared data in that case (or an unused standard), but
> also there would be no way to use the standard to build shared data
> cleaning tools to actually improve the situation, nor to use data services
> to look up alternative representations (language translations, for example)
> to serve a broader audience. The rest is up to how the records will be used
> - in other words, it is up to applications to enforce further restrictions
> if appropriate, and it is up to the stakeholders of those applications to
> decide what the restrictions will be for the purpose the application is
> trying to serve."
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Quentin Groom <
> quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be> wrote:
>
> Hi Paco,
>
> I'm glad to hear Plinian Core is active, I only recently discovered it and
> think it is a good initiative. The species data I've seen is in quite
> diverse and in unstandardised formats. It would be nice to see some of the
> big providers using Plinian Core.
>
>
>
> I'm not so worried about imposing limitations on users, because as far as
> I can see Darwin Core only recommends vocabularies, it doesn't enforce
> them. Having said that, it would be useful to know what is meant by "*Recommended
> best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary*", because if Darwin Core
> doesn't impose a vocabulary and there is no field to specify which
> vocabulary you are using then it doesn't help interoperability much.
>
>
>
> I'm happy to also discuss off list. Invasiveness and impact are difficult
> to standardize and so far I've chosen other fields that I consider easier
> to gain consensus on.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Quentin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Quentin Groom
>
> (Botany and Information Technology)
>
>
>
> Botanic Garden Meise
>
> Domein van Bouchout
>
> B-1860 Meise
>
> Belgium
>
>
>
> ORCID: 0000-0002-0596-5376 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-5376>
>
>
>
> Landline; +32 (0) 226 009 20 ext. 364
>
> FAX:      +32 (0) 226 009 45
>
>
>
> E-mail:     quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be
>
> Skype name: qgroom
>
> Website:    www.botanicgarden.be
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2016 at 19:08, Francisco Pando <pando at gbif.es> wrote:
>
> Quentin et al.,
>
>
>
> Plinian Core is active and backed up by an international group that seeks
> expansion. A session is planned in TDWG 2016 about it within the Species
> Information Interest Group slot.
>
>
>
> "Invasiveness" is a section within the Plinian Core schema:
> https://github.com/PlinianCore/Documentation/wiki/InvasivenessClass
>
> It is much based on the GISIN schema.   This can be revisited, updated and
> harmonized with current initiatives, some mentioned in this thread.
> Quentin, we may do a bit of exchange of-list
>
>
>
> Whereas shared vocabularies bring plenty of good things , I share Chuck’s
> concerns about imposing some unwanted limitations for some potential users
> of the schema.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>
> Francisco Pando
>
>
>
> Investigador
>
> Real Jardín Botánico - CSIC
>
> Plaza de Murillo, 2
>
> 28014 Madrid, Spain
>
> Tel.+34 91 420 3017 x 172
>
>
>
> *From:* tdwg-content [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Quentin Groom
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2016 10:10 PM
> *To:* Chuck Miller
>
>
> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] A proposal to improve Darwin Core for
> invasive species data
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> thanks for your point. The use cases I'm thinking of are conservation
> red-listing; horizon-scanning for potential new invasives; early warning of
> new aliens; impact assessment and invasion monitoring. We have recently be
> discussing the possibility of automating all of these process so that they
> can be repeated regularly, or as soon as new data becomes available.
> Obviously, for this we need observations, but we also need check-lists to
> tell us what is considered native or alien, present or extinct.
>
> I know more about invasive species research than red-listing, but I am
> aware that the current rate of red-listing is so slow that most things will
> become extinct before they are assessed. Given that the IUCN criteria are
> so clear, it should be possible to automate the whole process using GBIF.
> The only limitation with then be mobilizing the observations.
>
> Regards
>
> Quentin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Quentin Groom
>
> (Botany and Information Technology)
>
>
>
> Botanic Garden Meise
>
> Domein van Bouchout
>
> B-1860 Meise
>
> Belgium
>
>
>
> ORCID: 0000-0002-0596-5376 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-5376>
>
>
>
> Landline; +32 (0) 226 009 20 ext. 364
>
> FAX:      +32 (0) 226 009 45
>
>
>
> E-mail:     quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be
>
> Skype name: qgroom
>
> Website:    www.botanicgarden.be
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 May 2016 at 21:10, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org> wrote:
>
> Quentin,
>
> I think in addition to defining the community that needs the new Origin
> term, you also need to define the use cases to which the proposed
> controlled vocabularies for establishmentMeans and occurenceStatus apply.
> Darwin Core is used in multiple ways.  I think there may be use cases for
> these terms that don’t match the invasive species use cases. One controlled
> vocabulary may not work for all Darwin Core users.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *Chuck Miller | VP-IT & CIO | Missouri Botanical Garden*
>
> *4344 Shaw Boulevard | Saint Louis, MO 63110 | Phone 314-577-9419
> <314-577-9419>*
>
> *From:* tdwg-content [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Wieczorek
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2016 1:36 PM
> *To:* Quentin Groom
> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] A proposal to improve Darwin Core for
> invasive species data
>
>
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your effort in putting forth these welll thought out
> proposals. At various times I have heard discussions on the inadequecy of
> establishmentMeans. Your work encapsulates the problem well.
>
> One of the things that helps when proposing to add a Darwin Core term is
> demonstrating that there is a community that needs it. Can you tell us who
> has a demonstrated need to share this information? Anyone out there who has
> this interest is also welcome to share that here to provide evidence of
> demand from more than one group, project or individual.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Quentin Groom <
> quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be> wrote:
>
> I've been working on a proposal to improve Darwin Core for use with
> invasive species data.
>
>
>
> The proposal is detailed on GitHub at
> https://github.com/qgroom/ias-dwc-proposal/blob/master/proposal.md.
>
>
>
> The proposal is for a new term "origin" and suggested vocabularies for
> establishmentMeans and occurrenceStatus.
>
>
>
> I'd welcome your feedback on the proposal.
>
>
>
> From my perspective it provides some needed clarity on
> the establishmentMeans and occurrenceStatus fields, but also adds the
> origin that is needed for invasive species research and for conservation
> assessments.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure of the best way to discuss this, but if you have concrete
> proposals for changes you might raise them as issues on GitHub, as well as
> mentioning them here.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Quentin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Quentin Groom
>
> (Botany and Information Technology)
>
>
>
> Botanic Garden Meise
>
> Domein van Bouchout
>
> B-1860 Meise
>
> Belgium
>
>
>
> ORCID: 0000-0002-0596-5376 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-5376>
>
>
>
> Landline; +32 (0) 226 009 20 ext. 364
>
> FAX:      +32 (0) 226 009 45
>
>
>
> E-mail:     quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be
>
> Skype name: qgroom
>
> Website:    www.botanicgarden.be
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20160524/b491fd82/attachment-0001.html>