[IPT] basisOfRecord values

[John Wieczorek]

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 at 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)
>
>
>
>
>  <http://www.biodiversity.be/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing listIPT at lists.gbif.orghttp://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>
>
> --
>
> Hannu Saarenmaa, Research Directorhannu.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 Digitisationwww.eubon.eu - EU BON - GEO BON - Data Integration and Interoperability
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing list
> IPT at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20150626/4e0d4d50/attachment-0001.html>