Hi all
I have created an issues # 99 here :
https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/99
from the mails exchanges, it seems that this affects several providers and has wider implications then the point raised by Dimitri. I have not assigned the
issue to anyone yet.
Feel free to add your story and concerns here and to discuss the possible solutions.
All the best
Pat
From: IPT [mailto:ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org]
On Behalf Of Hannu Saarenmaa
Sent: vendredi 26 juin 2015 13:03
To: ipt@lists.gbif.org
Subject: Re: [IPT] basisOfRecord values
Yes, indeed such discussion belongs to the TDWG list. To open the thread we'd need some background of earlier discussions on basisOfRecord. It is one of the oldest terms and wasn't it even mandatory at some point. If I remember right,
related questions of the purpose of this term have been discussed earlier.
Hannu
On 2015-06-26 11:37, John Wieczorek wrote:
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)