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 <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) <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
Dear Dimitri, To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2]. Best regards, Kyle [1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2] https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar... On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation. unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown" This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question. -Paul On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2] https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
Quite some time ago the Dublin Core type vocabulary and Darwin Core type vocabulary were relegated to control distinct terms in Darwin Core. This meant that Dublin Core type values were recommended only for dcterms:type and not for basisOfRecord. Thus, a record of a camera trap image would have dcterms:type=StillImage and basisOfRecord=MachineObservation. Though the Darwin Core type vocabulary was deprecated, the recommendation (and the strength of it) remains. Following the recommendation (which GBIF's IPT implements and enforces), non-standard values are not allowed. My recommendation for the non-standard basisOfRecord values is to change to the following combinations: 'literatureObservation' - dcterms:type=Text, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'literature' - dcterms:type=Text basisOfRecord=Occurrence (if you can't be more specific) 'fieldObservation' - dcterms:type=Event, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'unknown' - dcterms:type=null, basisOfRecord=Occurrence On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation.
unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown"
This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question.
-Paul
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2]
https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
All, This means that everybody who used 'basisOfRecord' as defined in the Darwin Core (best to use controlled voc:) and republishes data could reach this issue in IPT (enforced to use controlled voc).... can encounter this problem. I don't know if I 'm happy with this. I need to change all the published data because we used literatureObservation whenever occurrences originated in literature... And it will eventually change the records which were published before... Chrs, Dimi On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:56 PM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Quite some time ago the Dublin Core type vocabulary and Darwin Core type vocabulary were relegated to control distinct terms in Darwin Core. This meant that Dublin Core type values were recommended only for dcterms:type and not for basisOfRecord. Thus, a record of a camera trap image would have dcterms:type=StillImage and basisOfRecord=MachineObservation. Though the Darwin Core type vocabulary was deprecated, the recommendation (and the strength of it) remains. Following the recommendation (which GBIF's IPT implements and enforces), non-standard values are not allowed.
My recommendation for the non-standard basisOfRecord values is to change to the following combinations:
'literatureObservation' - dcterms:type=Text, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'literature' - dcterms:type=Text basisOfRecord=Occurrence (if you can't be more specific) 'fieldObservation' - dcterms:type=Event, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'unknown' - dcterms:type=null, basisOfRecord=Occurrence
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation.
unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown"
This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question.
-Paul
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2]
https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- 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) <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
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 <http://www.inbo.be/> www.biodiversity.be <http://www.biodiversity.be/> www.beescommunity.be <http://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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi Mobile +358-50-4479668 University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
I understand on one hand, but on the other, why not follow the recommendations to begin with, or make an effort to get them changed if they did not suffice? Not trying to be snotty, just wondering. On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> wrote:
All,
This means that everybody who used 'basisOfRecord' as defined in the Darwin Core (best to use controlled voc:) and republishes data could reach this issue in IPT (enforced to use controlled voc).... can encounter this problem. I don't know if I 'm happy with this. I need to change all the published data because we used literatureObservation whenever occurrences originated in literature... And it will eventually change the records which were published before...
Chrs, Dimi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:56 PM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Quite some time ago the Dublin Core type vocabulary and Darwin Core type vocabulary were relegated to control distinct terms in Darwin Core. This meant that Dublin Core type values were recommended only for dcterms:type and not for basisOfRecord. Thus, a record of a camera trap image would have dcterms:type=StillImage and basisOfRecord=MachineObservation. Though the Darwin Core type vocabulary was deprecated, the recommendation (and the strength of it) remains. Following the recommendation (which GBIF's IPT implements and enforces), non-standard values are not allowed.
My recommendation for the non-standard basisOfRecord values is to change to the following combinations:
'literatureObservation' - dcterms:type=Text, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'literature' - dcterms:type=Text basisOfRecord=Occurrence (if you can't be more specific) 'fieldObservation' - dcterms:type=Event, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'unknown' - dcterms:type=null, basisOfRecord=Occurrence
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation.
unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown"
This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question.
-Paul
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2]
https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
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)
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 <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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing listIPT@lists.gbif.orghttp://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Directorhannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi Mobile +358-50-4479668
University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisationwww.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
Hi, Well, I do understand your concern. what we choose has much to do with how we read (interpreted) the recommendations. "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the list of Darwin Core classes. Examples: "PreservedSpecimen", "FossilSpecimen", "LivingSpecimen", "HumanObservation", "MachineObservation". " I read examples, and the only term which is corrupted is (the one we invented, years ago already..) is "literatureObservation" which, in my thinking did follow the line of the examples. I did not figured out that event:text en basisOfRecord: occurrence would de. Also here, occurrence is not in the list... That is the reason, not because we wanted to do something contrary. :) Also, I have no problem in using controlled vocabularies, when they suit my need. And reading the DwC explanation is states "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary " Chrs, Dimi On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:35 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
I understand on one hand, but on the other, why not follow the recommendations to begin with, or make an effort to get them changed if they did not suffice? Not trying to be snotty, just wondering.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> wrote:
All,
This means that everybody who used 'basisOfRecord' as defined in the Darwin Core (best to use controlled voc:) and republishes data could reach this issue in IPT (enforced to use controlled voc).... can encounter this problem. I don't know if I 'm happy with this. I need to change all the published data because we used literatureObservation whenever occurrences originated in literature... And it will eventually change the records which were published before...
Chrs, Dimi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:56 PM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Quite some time ago the Dublin Core type vocabulary and Darwin Core type vocabulary were relegated to control distinct terms in Darwin Core. This meant that Dublin Core type values were recommended only for dcterms:type and not for basisOfRecord. Thus, a record of a camera trap image would have dcterms:type=StillImage and basisOfRecord=MachineObservation. Though the Darwin Core type vocabulary was deprecated, the recommendation (and the strength of it) remains. Following the recommendation (which GBIF's IPT implements and enforces), non-standard values are not allowed.
My recommendation for the non-standard basisOfRecord values is to change to the following combinations:
'literatureObservation' - dcterms:type=Text, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'literature' - dcterms:type=Text basisOfRecord=Occurrence (if you can't be more specific) 'fieldObservation' - dcterms:type=Event, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'unknown' - dcterms:type=null, basisOfRecord=Occurrence
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation.
unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown"
This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question.
-Paul
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2]
https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
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)
-- 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) <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
I understand. Better documentation would go a long way toward avoiding such problems in the future. On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> wrote:
Hi,
Well, I do understand your concern. what we choose has much to do with how we read (interpreted) the recommendations.
"Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the list of Darwin Core classes. Examples: "PreservedSpecimen", "FossilSpecimen", "LivingSpecimen", "HumanObservation", "MachineObservation". "
I read examples, and the only term which is corrupted is (the one we invented, years ago already..) is "literatureObservation" which, in my thinking did follow the line of the examples. I did not figured out that event:text en basisOfRecord: occurrence would de. Also here, occurrence is not in the list...
That is the reason, not because we wanted to do something contrary. :)
Also, I have no problem in using controlled vocabularies, when they suit my need. And reading the DwC explanation is states "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary "
Chrs, Dimi
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:35 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
I understand on one hand, but on the other, why not follow the recommendations to begin with, or make an effort to get them changed if they did not suffice? Not trying to be snotty, just wondering.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be
wrote:
All,
This means that everybody who used 'basisOfRecord' as defined in the Darwin Core (best to use controlled voc:) and republishes data could reach this issue in IPT (enforced to use controlled voc).... can encounter this problem. I don't know if I 'm happy with this. I need to change all the published data because we used literatureObservation whenever occurrences originated in literature... And it will eventually change the records which were published before...
Chrs, Dimi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:56 PM, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Quite some time ago the Dublin Core type vocabulary and Darwin Core type vocabulary were relegated to control distinct terms in Darwin Core. This meant that Dublin Core type values were recommended only for dcterms:type and not for basisOfRecord. Thus, a record of a camera trap image would have dcterms:type=StillImage and basisOfRecord=MachineObservation. Though the Darwin Core type vocabulary was deprecated, the recommendation (and the strength of it) remains. Following the recommendation (which GBIF's IPT implements and enforces), non-standard values are not allowed.
My recommendation for the non-standard basisOfRecord values is to change to the following combinations:
'literatureObservation' - dcterms:type=Text, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'literature' - dcterms:type=Text basisOfRecord=Occurrence (if you can't be more specific) 'fieldObservation' - dcterms:type=Event, basisOfRecord=HumanObservation 'unknown' - dcterms:type=null, basisOfRecord=Occurrence
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:
fieldObservation probably maps sanely onto HumanObservation.
unknown maps sanely onto Occurrence "NOTE: this value is ambiguous and hence should only be used when the when the resource type is unknown"
This type vocabulary doesn't include a sane type for data derived from the literature. This type vocabulary claims to extend the Dublin Core type vocabulary, so data sourced from the literature should probably be able to map to Text http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text. Whether IPT, on a technical level, treats the DarwinCore type vocabulary as an extension of the DublinCore type vocabulary and treats values from dcmitype as valid is another question.
-Paul
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:58:42 +0200 Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
To satisfy the IPT’s requirements, you can translate your source’s values into values that match the Darwin Core Type vocabulary [1]. More information about the translation feature is available in the mapping section of the user manual [2].
Best regards, Kyle
[1] http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml [2]
https://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/wiki/IPT2ManualNotes?tm=6#Dar...
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:21, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be> 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) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPT mailing list > IPT@lists.gbif.org > http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
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)
--
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)
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<mailto: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<http://www.inbo.be/> www.biodiversity.be<http://www.biodiversity.be/> www.beescommunity.be<http://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) _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org<mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt -- Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi<mailto:hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi> Mobile +358-50-4479668<tel:%2B358-50-4479668> University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en<http://www.digitarium.fi/en> - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu<http://www.eubon.eu> - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org<mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
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 <mailto: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 <http://www.inbo.be/> www.biodiversity.be <http://www.biodiversity.be/> www.beescommunity.be <http://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)
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org <mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi <mailto:hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi> Mobile+358-50-4479668 <tel:%2B358-50-4479668>
University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu
www.digitarium.fi/en <http://www.digitarium.fi/en> - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu <http://www.eubon.eu> - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org <mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
-- Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi Mobile +358-50-4479668 University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
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<mailto: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<http://www.inbo.be/> www.biodiversity.be<http://www.biodiversity.be/> www.beescommunity.be<http://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) _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org<mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt -- Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi<mailto:hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi> Mobile +358-50-4479668<tel:%2B358-50-4479668> University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en<http://www.digitarium.fi/en> - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu<http://www.eubon.eu> - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org<mailto:IPT@lists.gbif.org> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt -- Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi<mailto:hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi> Mobile +358-50-4479668 University of Eastern Finland Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111) FI-80101 Joensuu www.digitarium.fi/en<http://www.digitarium.fi/en> - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation www.eubon.eu<http://www.eubon.eu> - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
I would say to feel free to add to the comments in the GitHub issue, but don't neglect taking the conversation openly to tdwg-content. That's where these things get discussed in the community, not GitHub issues. On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Mergen Patricia < patricia.mergen@africamuseum.be> wrote:
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 <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)
_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director
hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi
Mobile +358-50-4479668
University of Eastern Finland
Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park
Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111)
FI-80101 Joensuu
www.digitarium.fi/en - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation
www.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
--
Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director
hannu.saarenmaa@uef.fi
Mobile +358-50-4479668
University of Eastern Finland
Digitarium, SIB Labs, Joensuu Science Park
Länsikatu 15 (P.O. Box 111)
FI-80101 Joensuu
www.digitarium.fi/en - Service Centre for High-Performance Digitisation
www.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
The word "recommendation" itself is culturally loaded. Here in the north everyone just ignores any recommendation as just another opinion. But in the Latin culture a recommendation is something that must be followed. Learning this was part of my training when working in an unnamed international agency, where they wanted to be sensitive about cultural differences. I never thought it would be relevant for TDWG as well. ;-) Hannu On 2015-06-26 12:27, John Wieczorek wrote:
I understand. Better documentation would go a long way toward avoiding such problems in the future.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be <mailto:dimitri.brosens@inbo.be>> wrote:
Hi,
Well, I do understand your concern. what we choose has much to do with how we read (interpreted) the recommendations.
"Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as ....
Indeed, I could tell long stories about EU Recommendations, Directives and Rules and how we have to apply or not apply them in the member states and how much they are misunderstood, until we suddenly get a fine to pay for not following them ;) Have all a nice WE and looking forward to the DC/IPT discussions Pat From: IPT [mailto:ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org] On Behalf Of Hannu Saarenmaa Sent: vendredi 26 juin 2015 16:50 To: ipt@lists.gbif.org Subject: Re: [IPT] (no subject) The word "recommendation" itself is culturally loaded. Here in the north everyone just ignores any recommendation as just another opinion. But in the Latin culture a recommendation is something that must be followed. Learning this was part of my training when working in an unnamed international agency, where they wanted to be sensitive about cultural differences. I never thought it would be relevant for TDWG as well. ;-) Hannu On 2015-06-26 12:27, John Wieczorek wrote: I understand. Better documentation would go a long way toward avoiding such problems in the future. On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Dimitri Brosens <dimitri.brosens@inbo.be<mailto:dimitri.brosens@inbo.be>> wrote: Hi, Well, I do understand your concern. what we choose has much to do with how we read (interpreted) the recommendations. "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as ....
participants (6)
-
Dimitri Brosens -
Hannu Saarenmaa -
John Wieczorek -
Kyle Braak -
Mergen Patricia -
Paul J. Morris