Agreed, I was saying the same thing to my colleague Larissa few minutes ago, that this maybe something to discuss in the DARWIN Core group or the TDWG content
mailing list. Also check out here the issues :
https://github.com/tdwg/dwc and maybe make a new one with this ?
All the best
Pat
From: IPT [mailto:ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org]
On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
Sent: vendredi 26 juin 2015 10:40
To: Hannu Saarenmaa
Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org
Subject: Re: [IPT] basisOfRecord values
It might make sense to split the term, but I think that discussion has to take place in the context of the Darwin Core rather than on the IPT mailing list, no?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Hannu Saarenmaa <hannu.saarenmaa@helsinki.fi> wrote:
Dimitri brings up an important issue. I think this whole list of allowable values of basisOfRecord needs to be thought over. The available controlled values do not meet the needs of earth observation, where we work with quantitative data.
My working list of values looks like below. Each of them also requires an individualCount, if possible:
1. Sighting (of live individuals from a distance, without intervention from an observer)
2. Observation (of captured, verified individuals, but no particular sampling scheme)
3. Monitoring (part of a scheme, where all individuals have been counted, resulting in a quantitative estimate of abundance, and lack of related record means abscence)
Ideally, the protocol is also described in more detail for the entire dataset, in an EML document. That applies in particular for Monitoring data, where we may be reasoning about abscence.
I do not list specimens above. Specimens may be preserved as evidence of observation and monitoring. (It is understood that a specimen record implies an occurrence.) Literature records and photographs are similar, as they may link to any of the above categories.
Would it make sense to split basisOfRecord into two terms, which are "occurrenceType" and "evidenceType"?
- Hannu
On 2015-06-25 17:21, Dimitri Brosens wrote:
Dear,
I was wondering, in DwC it is stated:
Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the list of Darwin Core classes. Examples: "PreservedSpecimen", "FossilSpecimen", "LivingSpecimen", "HumanObservation",
"MachineObservation". For discussion see http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/dwc:basisOfRecord
As far as I understand, this is not mandatory and we have been using terms which are not in the 'supposed' controlled vocabulary on the tdwg site....
Publishing version #22.1 of resource belgian-coccinellidae-inbo-occurrences failed: Archive generation for resource belgian-coccinellidae-inbo-occurrences failed: Can't validate DwC-A for resource belgian-coccinellidae-inbo-occurrences.
Each row in the occurrence file(s) must have a basisOfRecord, and each basisOfRecord must match the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary (please note comparisons are case insensitive)
Continue to resource overview.
My problem is that IPT refuses to republish my previously published datasets where we use terms like: 'literatureObservation' , 'literature', fieldObservation or 'unknown
What to do?
Chrs,
Dimi
--
Belgian Biodiversity Platform
Dimitri Brosens
Biodiversity Research Liaison Officer
Research Institute for Nature and Forest
Kliniekstraat 25
1070 Brussels
ORCID: 0000-0002-0846-9116
www.inbo.be
www.biodiversity.be
www.beescommunity.be
WATCH OUR BELGIAN BIODIVERSITY PLATFORM MOVIES ON:
http://vimeo.com/114955090 (data publication activities)
http://vimeo.com/114955160 (science-policy activities)
http://vimeo.com/114955193 (our general mission)