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

[Quentin Groom]

Dear All,

regarding the proposal to improve Darwin Core for invasive species
data. Melodie McGeoch (Monash University) gave me this response off-list to
the proposal and has allowed me to share it with you.







*"I come at this discussion as very much a non-expert on data basing, but
from the viewpoint of data needs for indicator use, errors associated with
alien listing, and more recently essential variables for invasion
monitoring. I will leave the technical details in your highly capable
hands, and rather comment on some of the points you have made that resonate
with various other activities on the go.The point about the need to
identify/designate the native and introduced ranges is spot on, and is
possibly the most important current gap in available and readily accessible
information from my perspective. This applies at both the individual record
level as well as the species level, i.e. knowing if a species is known to
occur/have been introduced outside of its native range, as well as knowing
if individual records of the species are within either the introduced or
native range. We have a couple of publications that deal with this topic,
as well as one in review.It would be very valuable if we could try and
align the vocabulary with the Essential Biodiversity Variable initiative
(http://geobon.org/essential-biodiversity-variables/what-are-ebvs/
<http://geobon.org/essential-biodiversity-variables/what-are-ebvs/>), as
well as our recent project under this umbrella on Essential Variables for
Invasion Monitoring (www.invasionevs.com <http://www.invasionevs.com/>).
The basic info is on the website, but we have a paper undergoing minor
revision with further detail which I can circulate soon. The 3 variables we
identified as 'essential' are alien species occurrence, species alien
status (i.e. a designation for each record of whether the record lies
inside or outside of the native range) and alien species impact (using the
new EICAT scheme). The vocab for the EVs is not 100% fixed - although it
would be useful not to change it now, we can still do so to maximize
alignment across initiatives, or at very least cross-reference these. In
terms of the pathways you discussed in your proposal Quentin - I strongly
support your suggestion to align the vocabulary with the 'Standard
Categorisation of Pathways' scheme developed and adopted by the IUCN/CBD
etc. There have been some recent developments and updates on this, which
you are probably aware of (I can send these on if not)."*

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 29 May 2016 at 08:14, Quentin Groom <quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be>
wrote:

> Dear Donald,
> that's a fantastic manifesto and challenge.
>
> In discussions over DwC changes for invasive species the lack of
> understanding on the uses of DwC and its fields was evident. In this light,
> Donald's wishlist to find a balance between human and computer usability
> seems very sensible. The lack of knowledge in the community is not the
> fault of DwC, but if DwC field names and vocabularies were more adopted
> within collection databases and other software understanding would improve.
>
> A common problem of understanding was DwC's usage for checklists, as
> opposed to observations and specimens. These different perspectives give
> different meanings to fields. For example, occurrenceStatus make sense from
> the perspective of a checklist, but one could easily imagine it being
> competed by a diligent researcher for a specimen where is has ambiguous
> meaning.
>
> Regarding what workshops might be needed, I'll leave this to the TDWG
> people, but I'm certainly trying to get to the annual TDWG conference this
> year and I hope some of this can be discussed there.
>
> 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 27 May 2016 at 16:28, Donald Hobern <dhobern at gbif.org> wrote:
>
>> On behalf of the GBIF Secretariat, I’d like to emphasise our extreme
>> interest in assisting with the next phase in developing Darwin Core and
>> TDWG standards generally.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many important points have already been made.  Flexibility to accommodate
>> plain text and URIs in the same fields leaves some problems for data
>> aggregators and users but is clearly the only workable way to enable data
>> publishing from the widest possible range of sources.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I think it is essential that we use this opportunity to revisit
>> the whole architecture of how we represent share, and use biodiversity
>> data.  There are several interconnected aspects that should be included in
>> this debate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I take it as a given that our shared vision should include enabling human
>> users and machines to find all of the information and to traverse all of
>> the data connections that a knowledgeable researcher can see in the
>> biodiversity literature, collections and other resources. By this, I mean
>> that we should be able to start from any point in the biodiversity data
>> graph and find the meaningful links to associated data objects. From
>> specimen to taxon concept to taxon name to publication; from sequence to
>> associated sequences to taxon concepts to species occurrences; etc., etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> This means that our data architecture needs to pay attention to the
>> following matters (quite independently of the challenges of delivering the
>> infrastructures that underpin their successful implementation):
>>
>>
>>
>> ·       Agreement on the set of core data classes within the
>> biodiversity domain which we consider important enough to standardise
>> (specimen, collection, taxon name, taxon concept, sequence, gene,
>> publication, taxon trait, … - or whatever we all agree).
>>
>> ·       Agreement on the set of core relationships between instances of
>> these classes that we consider important enough to standardise (specimen
>> identifiedAs taxon concept, taxon name publishedIn publication, etc.).
>>
>> ·       Making sure that our data publishing mechanisms (cores,
>> extensions, etc.) align accurately with these classes and support these
>> relationships – this mainly means reworking the current confused interplay
>> between cores, DwC classes, use of dcterms:type and use of basisOfRecord –
>> every record should be clearly identified as an instance of a class (or a
>> view of several linked class instances) and (for the core data classes)
>> this should form the basis for inference and interpretation.
>>
>> ·       An ongoing process of defining for each core class what
>> properties are mandatory (maybe only: id, class), highly desirable
>> (depending on the class, things like: decimal coordinates, scientific name,
>> identifiedAs, publishedIn), generally agreed (many other properties for
>> which we have working vocabularies and do not want unnecessary
>> multiplication, e.g.: waterbody, maximumDepthInMeters) or optional/bespoke
>> (anything else that any data publisher wishes to include). In other words,
>> allow any properties to be shared but ensure that the contours of the data
>> are clear to standard tools.
>>
>> ·       A set of good examples of datasets mapped into this model, using
>> various serialisations.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be valuable to get a feeling for what workshops might be needed,
>> when might be best to hold them, and how much funding would be required to
>> ensure the right attendance.  GBIF may be able to contribute some of this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Donald
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Donald Hobern - GBIF Executive Secretary - dhobern at gbif.org
>>
>> Global Biodiversity Information Facility 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:* tdwg-content [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Lee Belbin
>> *Sent:* Friday, 27 May 2016 5:31 AM
>> *To:* Quentin Groom <quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be>
>> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] A proposal to improve Darwin Core for
>> invasive species data
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John et al,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ditto (to Annie's comment) from me.
>>
>>
>>
>> As most of you know, I have been standing back from TDWG for a few years
>> now, but it has been hard to avoid interest in the development of TDWG's
>> most significant standard. I have been aware of at least three independent
>> suggestions that are relevant to my interests.
>>
>>
>>
>> As from the beginning, the difficulty remains in getting wise heads
>> together (face-to-face) and getting consensus on recommendations in a
>> timely manner. The TDWG meetings are too busy without sufficient time to
>> achieve outcomes. Teleconferencing is great in theory but hopeless in
>> practice. The only alternative is to find time and $ for dedicated meetings
>> adjacent to, or separate from the TDWG Conference. It has been done before
>> to good effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> I raise this as I believe that the time for such a meeting is well and
>> truly here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> Lee Belbin
>> Blatant Fabrications Pty Ltd
>> Tasmania
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Quentin Groom <
>> quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be> wrote:
>>
>> I second Annie, this is a real problem in Biodiversity Informatics in
>> general. Unless you can turn maintenance tasks into peer reviewed papers
>> then you get little credit for it.
>>
>> 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 25 May 2016 at 17:57, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Annie. I don't plan to give up, it's just that I don't feel I have
>> been doing it justice for a while now.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Simpson, Annie <asimpson at usgs.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Chiming in now, very briefly...
>>
>>
>>
>> John, you are the DwC champion who has kept it moving forward in a
>> comprehensible and useful way. The TDWG community is very grateful for your
>> work on this and I personally hope you don't give up the good fight.
>>
>>
>> Annie Simpson, biologist & information scientist
>>
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8338-5134
>>
>> BISON project (http://bison.usgs.ornl.gov)
>>
>> Core Science Analytics, Synthesis, & Libraries Program
>>
>> U.S. Geological Survey, MS 302
>> 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
>> Reston, Virginia  20192
>> =================
>> asimpson at usgs.gov
>> 703.648.4281 desk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:26 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> One primary idea behind the BCO is indeed as the proving ground you
>> mention. The challenge is having consistent available resources to do that
>> work. With BCO it could be a particular challenge, I think, since it can
>> cover so much semantic space. I would love to be in a position to be a
>> proper BCO caretaker, but I have not even been able to do a good job with
>> Darwin Core as it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Quentin Groom <
>> quentin.groom at plantentuinmeise.be> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting! I had not come across Apple Core before. Isn't this
>> proving-ground role something that the Biological Collections Ontology
>> can also do?
>>
>> I like the idea of a Darwin Core with different levels of adherence to
>> rules. I agree that strict enforcement of rules will inhibit the flow of
>> data, but in my own experience there are simple fields that I could have
>> easily completed in a standardized way, if only I could have found a
>> suitable recommendation to follow. Hierarchical vocabularies are
>> particularly useful here, because they have built in flexibility.
>>
>> 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 25 May 2016 at 03:17, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160529/4d1b4522/attachment.html>