[IPT] basisOfRecord values

[Hannu Saarenmaa]

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)
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing list
> IPT at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt

-- 

Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Director
hannu.saarenmaa at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20150626/33d0f7b9/attachment-0001.html>