request for comment: DiSSCo specimen & collection classification #470
Comments
|
It is unfortunate that @tdwg/material-sample work is not considered in this at all. It might benefit those working on the document to participate in the MaterialSample Task Group. |
|
Hi Teresa, In the MaterialSample task group is Matt representing the DiSSCo technical team as we tried to distribute the work a bit. This should also ensure alignment with LtC. Jutta is involved and has done work for DiSSCo also. I did not explicitly mention the material-sample work as I thought it is still much a work in progress but it was taken into account, e.g. by adding a field to distinguish between materialEntity and digitalEntity, also needed for the new GBIF schema. So I do not see incompatibility with the proposed new DwC term MaterialEntity? What am I missing? One thing we cannot use though is the draft dwc: materialSampleType vocabulary which I think currently contains FossilSpecimen, LivingSpecimen, PreservedSpecimen, EnvironmentalSample. That does not fit our needs in DiSSCo which has a wider scope and it is also lacking detail. One thing I find confusing is that the term name dwc:materialSampleType was chosen as there is an iSamples vocabulary for that term already. The issue we now have in DiSSCo is that we need to move forward with implementation and I hope that at least MIDS and LtC are ready enough to build on. The urgent need we now have for implementation is the development of some controlled vocabularies for the digital specimen FDO record part. The proposed vocabs are not final and suggestions for improvement are welcome! |
|
dwc: materialSampleType - as far as I know, there is no such term in Darwin Core? |
|
That is correct, the term dwc:materialSampleType is a fabrication. |
|
In addition, the MaterialSample Task Group has determined that a term such as materialSampleType would be overburdened and we have been considering the iSamples terms (yes all three). But we definitely see issues with the controlled vocabularies in iSamples as they relate to biological material and we have had to move away from this in order to work on a larger class of material - MaterialEntity as we attempt to create appropriate material terms for the new GBIF model that is in testing. |
While this may be true, as far as I know these have not been formally adopted and could end up being different than whatever is there now. |
|
That is correct and we are aware of it. In that case we may need to adjust
implementation.
Op do 23 mrt. 2023 19:54 schreef Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
***@***.***>:
… MIDS and LtC are ready enough to build on
While this may be true, as far as I know these have not been formally
adopted and could end up being different than whatever is there now.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#470 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADAUXUJI2Z2RTVOJ4CNMILW5SL6HANCNFSM6AAAAAAWCEQWPA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
OK, so it looks we are in agreement?
Op do 23 mrt. 2023 19:52 schreef Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
***@***.***>:
… In addition, the MaterialSample Task Group has determined that a term such
as materialSampleType would be overburdened and we have been considering
the iSamples terms (yes all three). But we definitely see issues with the
controlled vocabularies in iSamples as they relate to biological material
and we have had to move away from this in order to work on a larger class
of material - MaterialEntity as we attempt to create appropriate material
terms for the new GBIF model that is in testing.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#470 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADAUXVFUEA6SACODDZKOITW5SLWHANCNFSM6AAAAAAWCEQWPA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Correct, but was it not discussed as a possible new DwC term? That is what
I understood from the GitHub issues. If not then there is no problem.
Op do 23 mrt. 2023 19:42 schreef Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
***@***.***>:
… dwc: materialSampleType - as far as I know, there is no such term in
Darwin Core?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#470 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADAUXXPRDTBOOYZM42VTT3W5SKQVANCNFSM6AAAAAAWCEQWPA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Yes, there is an open issue for it, which was relegated to the Material
Sample Task Group.
…On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:32 PM Wouter Addink ***@***.***> wrote:
Correct, but was it not discussed as a possible new DwC term? That is what
I understood from the GitHub issues. If not then there is no problem.
Op do 23 mrt. 2023 19:42 schreef Teresa Mayfield-Meyer <
***@***.***>:
> dwc: materialSampleType - as far as I know, there is no such term in
> Darwin Core?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#470 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADAUXXPRDTBOOYZM42VTT3W5SKQVANCNFSM6AAAAAAWCEQWPA
>
> .
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#470 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ723XIQPDCAKOCSKFCCTW5SQLFANCNFSM6AAAAAAWCEQWPA>
.
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
For your information, an RFC for a high level specimen and collection classification, to implement in DiSSCo and to use in the FDO record for a digital specimen. Since this is related to how we plan to implement LtC, I also post it here.
RFC Document
please review this RFC before 15 April 2023. Note that controlled vocabularies are not part of the LtC standard in development.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: