[IPT] update of Darwin Core Resource Relationship extension

[Rui Figueira]

Hi Markus,

Thank you for your quick reply.

I understand the need to make the updated extension "correct", 
accordingly to the "class".

However, the lack of implementation on GBIF in ingesting related 
resources is a point of concern.

It brings to my memory the XVII Congress of the European Mycological 
Association (EMA), in 2015, in Madeira. In that congress, Dmitry Schigel 
and myself, we were invited to organise a symposium on Biodiversity 
Informatics and Fungal Data, in the end of the first day. But, in the 
opening plenary session of the the conference, the President of EMA, 
David Minter, stated with emphasis that GBIF deliberately lacked support 
to all mycological researcher community. His main argument was that GBIF 
does not support interactions between species, which is critical data 
for many fungi species. Unfortunately, I think we have to agree with him!

Using associatedTaxa is a limited solution if we want to document the 
occurrence of the interaction. And using the extension will create 
problems when documenting interactions between different biological 
groups, namely in the metadata description.

I came across this problem precisely because I am preparing and update 
of a dataset of fungi 
https://www.gbif.org/dataset/651c0bec-bd78-4300-bbb0-5ed172fc82af, where 
all fungi are associated with a plant host. The use of the extension 
would allow us to define, for example, the establishment means of the 
host. But, if GBIF is not ingesting the resource relationship, we are 
only left with the option of using associatedTaxa and occurrenceRemarks 
to document interactions, which is not my preferred option.

Best regards,

Rui

------------------

Rui Figueira
Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF
ruifigueira at isa.ulisboa.pt
Instituto Superior de Agronomia
Herbário
Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
Tel. +351 213653165 | Fax. +351 213653195
http://www.gbif.pt
http://www.isa.ulisboa.pt

On 06/28/2018 11:38 AM, Markus Döring wrote:
> Hi Rui,
>
> the scientificName term was dropped because it is not part of the 
> regular DwC relation "class":
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#relindex
>
> The resource relation can relate any kind of things and GBIF needs to 
> lookup the ids to find the scientificName of the related resource in 
> your case. Unfortunately this is not implemented right now, so by 
> upgrading to the latest "correct" version of the extension you will 
> lose the related scientific name on the GBIF occurrence page.
>
>
> When I look at your example the data is a little unexpected though.
> The relatedResourceID is given as 701c94f1-16eb-4c1e-8449-f3b046100187:
> https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/1585354292/verbatim
>
> This should be the occurrenceID of the occurrence record for the plant 
> it feeds on (Pistacia terebinthus)
> If I lookup this record in your dataset it is missing:
> https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?dataset_key=85a3c886-3312-45c9-b040-4d7634653246&occurrence_id=701c94f1-16eb-4c1e-8449-f3b046100187&advanced=1
>
> If I look at the taxonomic overview of your dataset it is all 
> Arthropoda, so the related food plants all seem to be excluded?
> https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/taxonomy?dataset_key=85a3c886-3312-45c9-b040-4d7634653246&advanced=1
>
> If you only want to annotate an occurrence record with the plant it 
> feeds on you should not be using the relations extension but instead 
> look into dwc:associatedTaxa: 
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#associatedTaxa
>
>
> With regards,
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>> On 28. Jun 2018, at 12:14, Rui Figueira <ruifigueira at isa.ulisboa.pt 
>> <mailto:ruifigueira at isa.ulisboa.pt>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi IPT list members,
>>
>> Could anyone help me to understand what are the implications of doing 
>> an update of the Darwin Core Resource Relationship extension, that 
>> our IPT installation is asking to update?
>>
>> I am particularly concerned with the dataset 
>> http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=edp_tua_arthropoda_eia, that is 
>> using this extension. The table resourcerelationship.txt in the 
>> dataset uses the term scientificName to identify the name of the tree 
>> where larva of butterflies feed on. This is reflected in the 
>> occurrence data at gbif.org <http://gbif.org>, for example, in this 
>> record: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292.
>>
>> I noticed that the update of the extension dropped the term 
>> scientificName. So, could anyone guide me on the changes that I need 
>> to do in the dataset, in order to be able to update the extension and 
>> have the same or equivalent information about the relationship in the 
>> record at https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292? 
>> <https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292?>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rui
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------
>>
>> Rui Figueira
>> Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF
>> ruifigueira at isa.ulisboa.pt <mailto:ruifigueira at isa.ulisboa.pt>
>> Instituto Superior de Agronomia
>> Herbário
>> Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
>> Tel. +351 213653165 | Fax. +351 213653195
>> http://www.gbif.pt
>> http://www.isa.ulisboa.pt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPT mailing list
>> IPT at lists.gbif.org
>> https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20180628/6470b66e/attachment-0001.html>