Collections Catalogue - Daily Summaries

[dhobern]

An integrated summary from all days has been uploaded here.

This is a progress summary on the virtual consultation, Advancing the Catalogue of the World's Natural History Collections.

This summary covers activity from 12:00 UTC on 28 April 2020 to 11:00 UTC on 30 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

We have reached the scheduled end date for the consultation. The coordination team will now begin preparation of a draft white paper based on the discussions. This draft will be posted on this site and circulated to all registered participants for comment and further input - please register here. All discussion topics will remain open for further contributions and these will be considered for inclusion.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response: The catalogue will reduce the need for expensive travel by making it easier to contact collections. It will also be valuable for the wider scientific community, environmental authorities and education.
  • Response: Data must be kept up to date.
• 1.2. Locating specimens and genetic materials (USE) - #2
  • Response: Information collected on >300 North American arthropod collections. Work continues on around 750 worldwide. Most information was collected from institutional websites. A standard information form would be a great help.
  • Response: It will be valuable to know the taxonomic scope of each collection. In the Colombian registry (RNC), only higher taxa are listed. Estimates of holdings may help with collection management.
• 1.3. First step towards databasing collections (USE)
  • Response: Issues with current content in GBIF and GRSciColl, including confusion between institutions and collections.
  • Response: Success is most likely if the catalogue is well supported by the community and there are good tools and tutorials.
  • Response: The catalogue may indirectly lead to digitisation by raising external pressure for data to be available.
• 1.4. Assessing the scale and value of collections (USE)
  • Question: Metrics may be useful to government agencies. It is possible that metrics may not need to be fully standardised. The term “value” may be problematic if administrators see some collections as less valuable.
• 1.5. Increased value for data on specimens, taxonomic publications, etc. (USE) - #2
  • Response: It will be useful if the catalogue contains information on preservation methods. Collections may not be defined in ways that are scientifically meaningful for other purposes.
• 1.6. Reducing duplication of effort (USE)
  • Response: GGBN would save resources by not having to maintain a separate catalogue. The catalogue would save time for collections staff. It may be difficult to resolve records for the same collection from different sources.
• 1.7. Foundation for new and enriched services (USE)
  • Response: Natural history collections also have a role as part of cultural heritage. Links to genomic information from INSDC would be useful. Environmental and regulatory agencies need information on collections. The catalogue should link to the institution’s own web resources. Attempting too many functions may impact core services.
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Organising all identifiers used (even incorrect ones) is a useful step. Greater visibility will help biobanks. Examples of issues with citation of tissue samples. Making the catalogue a standard tool (like GenBank) will enhance visibility.
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE) - #12 by sharif.islam
  • Response: The RNC registry in Colombia plays an important role in permitting processes for collecting specimens.
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Organisation and support of collections varies greatly between institutions. Discussion of “research collections”/“private collections”. Researchers need to know 1) what materials exist, 2) where materials are held, and 3) how it is possible to access materials. Biobanks should be included.
  • Response: Discussion of detailed example from INBio of how collections may be redefined over time.
  • Response: A good starting-point is to get a list of collections from each institution.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Hierarchies may not fit institutions that have multiple overlapping collections e.g. in different colleges. Hierarchical information may help with collection management. Different institutions may categorise collections differently.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Discussion of relationships between institutions, a hierarchy of collections and datasets.
• 2.4. Description of a collection (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Consensus metadata standards may not be well structured for efficient use.
• 2.5. Wider data linkages (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Collections could make more use of field images. Types, taxa included, collectors, publications and staff should all be linked. Field notes should be mentioned.
• 2.6. Information services relating to collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: All the suggested services would be valuable and help collections to work together better.
• 3.1. Pathways and tools for publishing collection records (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Examples from Colombia and Argentina. The Argentinian SNDB registry holds less information than many of the collection systems.
• 3.2. Community catalogues (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: GGBN is keen to participate and will retain its own identity.
• 3.3. Integrated catalogue (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Colombian law gives responsibility to the RNC catalogue to the Alexander von Humboldt Institute.
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Symbiota supports data import via Excel, CSV or from IPT servers. In Costa Rica, collection systems have been expected to provide annual estimates of holdings.
• 3.5. Interfaces, APIs and client modules (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Content of collection records should be interpreted and validated as far as possible so it can be used as data.
• 4.1. Ownership of information for each collection (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Collection administrators are still not as engaged as is necessary. In Argentina, access to collection information has sometimes been restricted. Indigenous labels and worldviews should be included where relevant.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Communities of collections work well when organised along taxonomic lines. Example of UK experiences through NatSCA. In considering communities of practice, it is important to focus on the people involved.
• 4.3. Technical infrastructures (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: The informatics components should focus on supporting the information needs of collections.
• 4.4. Governance arrangements (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Discussion of relationship between GBIF/GRSciColl and community catalogues (collaboration or competition, unified or integrated). Alongside the FAIR principles, the Indigenous Data Sovereignty working group has articulate the CARE principles to support ethical use of materials from indigenous groups.
• 4.5. Incentives for contributors (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Sometimes there may be benefits in publishing information on behalf of collections, but they must have confidence that they are in control. Incentives may include advertising and recognition for the collection, tools that simplify work inside the collection, more credibility when seeking funding. Collections would benefit if funding is available for visits by taxonomists and for software licences.
• 4.6. Funding and sustainability (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Need to be able to identify meaningful metrics to justify long-term support. Government agencies, major world collections and GBIF may play important roles in securing funding.
• Comments on this virtual consultation process
  • Response: It is important to engage with less well resourced collections. Discussion of possible reasons why some stakeholder may have chosen not to participate.

The most recent review of discussion activity [can be found here]. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.
(Collections Catalogue - Daily Summaries - #7 by dhobern).

Earlier summaries are available as posts below this summary: 19 April, 21 April, 22 April, 23 April, 24 April, 25 April, 26 April, 27 April, 28 April

Thanks to abentley, agosti, Anabela, bsterner, cboelling, clauden, cweiland, Debbie, dhobern, dshorthouse, ekrimmel, elyw, emeyke, ErikaSalazar, frederikberger, gdadade, Hongfeng-Wang, igladstone, JessUtrup, kcopas, L_Tilley, Lyubomir, Maofang, maperalta mareike.petersen, mhoefft, mswoodburn, neilcobb, PaoloViscardi, psemal, pzermoglio, qgroom, Rich87, sabaj, sharif.islam, strawberry, tkarim, trobertson, TuoHe, vsmithuk, waddink, WenJun and WUlate for their contributions.

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 19 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity up to 12:00 UTC on 19 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. We aim to post summaries in other languages to the Spanish , French and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Question: What is the “collections community”? Do collection managers have the same goals as administrators, taxonomists, etc.?
  • Response: Natural science collections support a more unified community than collections as a whole.
  • Response: The catalogue will assist institutional managers with planning, funding and showing importance.
  • Response: The catalogue helps to establish collections as a global science infrastructure.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response : It is unlikely that everyone will ever agree on a single definition of “collection” or “institution” so we must make it possible for them to decide how to identify their own collections.
• 3.1. Pathways and tools for publishing collection records (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: 1) Success will depend on offering good software for managing information, 2) Wikidata is likely to be a good way to share information, but not to manage it.
• 3.5. Interfaces, APIs and client modules (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: OpenRefine may be a valuable tool for reconciling data from different sources. It may help to link information about the same collection even when identifiers are not fully standardised.
• 4.1. Ownership of information for each collection (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Good presentation of information will encourage institutions to take active control of their collection records.
  • Response: We should consider what will help institutions prioritise keeping information current.
• Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo
  • This document was added on 17 April - it offers a series of suggestions from the European DiSSCo infrastructure team.

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 21 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 12:00 UTC on 19 April 2020 to 02:00 UTC on 21 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response: The catalogue will bring value by making acronyms for institutions and collections searchable. This has become even more important with digital information.
  • Response: The catalogue is a good place to start in finding ways to leverage collective resources and funds.
• 1.3. First step towards databasing collections (USE)
  • Question: Can we use the four GBIF dataset classes to help collections easily evolve from no presence online to offering rich digital access?
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • Response: National or regional catalogues are important for demonstrating the role, value, strengths, weaknesses and uses of collections. (See also Topic 1.4)
  • Response Aggregating information at regional levels makes it easier to present the value of collections - comments are welcome on the design sketch offered by GBIF.
• Presentation: The Specifications of Earth Science Collections (CETAF)
  • How can we support the needs of geoscience collections? Are the requirements the same, or do we need to explore other solutions as well?
  • Question: Are the vocabularies that this presentation discusses already stable and ready for wider use?

[dhobern]

Daily Summary from 22 April 2020

@dhobern

• 1.2. Locating specimens and genetic materials (USE)
  • Question: Will some countries have legal restrictions on what information can be shared about collections and their specimens?
• 1.6. Reducing duplication of effort (USE)
  • Response: See Singer, Love, & Page 2018 to see how much work was involved in creating a catalogue of fish collections.
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • Response: Institutions don’t just need metrics on size and digitisation. They also need to be able to show what is special, important or valuable about their collection. (See also Topic 1.4)
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Institutions may have “collections” of archival materials, field notebooks, multimedia, etc. - it is important to determine whether these are in scope as independent collections. (Topic 2.5 considers these as materials that at least need to be linked to a collection.)
  • Response: Paleontological collections have many common requirements and should be considered.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: We need to be flexible about what institutions can identify as a collection.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Orphaned collections that another institution adopts could be handled as items in a hierarchy.
• 3.2. Community catalogues (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Question : Can collections be given mechanisms that allow them to keep Index Herbariorum entries current and automatically update other public views of the catalogue.
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Discussion about how collection management systems could become key tools for managing collection records.
• Presentation: The Specifications of Earth Science Collections (CETAF)
  • Response: Standards and vocabularies are still under development for earth science and paleobiology materials. DiSSCo Prepare is working on these.
• Document: GBIF Services and Support for the Collections Catalogue
  • Response: Many ideas in response to the GBIF paper on possible web interfaces for collection information.

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 23 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 03:00 UTC to 23:00 UTC on 22 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response: The catalogue is important for building a sense of community and opportunities for new collaborations
• 1.2. Locating specimens and genetic materials (USE)
  • Response: The experience in the UK is that information on collections is heavily used.
  • Response: The catalogue can play an important role in simplifying linkages between specimen data and e.g. GenBank records.
  • Response: Different disciplines (different taxonomic groups) will need to be able to capture different sets of minimal information.
• 1.3. First step towards databasing collections (USE)
  • Response: Institutions need more guidance on how to share the data they have on their collections. Clear roadmaps and strategies will help.
• 1.6. Reducing duplication of effort (USE)
  • Response: There are opportunities to make it easier for other sectors to build a catalogue like the fish collection catalogue.
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Some collection communities have good practices around how collections are referenced and cited, but this varies by sector.
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • Response: It should be possible to scope and present the catalogue to serve the perspectives of different communities.
  • Response: Much of what is special about each collection relates to the significance of individual specimens.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: The catalogue needs to be flexible about what is considered a collection. Maybe not all collections need human-readable identifiers.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Users need pathways to find information for an institution or for a collection or for a dataset. These are different requirements.
• 2.4. Description of a collection (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Different disciplines or sectors should have the ability to agree different profiles of information to include and display.
• 3.1. Pathways and tools for publishing collection records (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Institutions need pathways for updates to be published automatically.
• 3.2. Community catalogues (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Access to edit records should be role-based rather than tied to a system or user.
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: For many collections, the “collection management system” is Excel. This needs to be covered.
  • Response: Collection management systems can play a valuable role as a source of statistics on digitisation progress.
• Presentation: TDWG Collection Descriptions Data Standard Task Group
  • Response: The CD standard should include an element to show which collection management software is used by the collection.

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 24 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 23:00 UTC on 22 April 2020 to 23:00 UTC on 23 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.3. First step towards databasing collections (USE)
  • Question: What information do paleontological collections typically already hold regarding their materials?
• 1.4. Assessing the scale and value of collections (USE)
  • Response: It is important to consider broader societal value as well as pure economic value.
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Citation is likely to be increased if the catalogue makes links with other information tools such as ROR records.
  • Response: We need good citation practices to be built into the whole research lifecycle, including how we apply the FAIR principles.
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • Response: See the DiSSCo user stories as examples of the need to assess value.
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: The 10 Recommendations from DiSSCo presentation includes DiSSCo’s perspectives on this topic.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Our efforts to help institutions identify their collections will help other communities such as libraries.
  • Response: The 10 Recommendations from DiSSCo presentation includes DiSSCo’s perspectives on this topic.
• 2.4. Description of a collection (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Different disciplines or sectors need different profiles instead of just more options.
• 2.5. Wider data linkages (INFORMATION)
  • Question: What can be done to help institutions in data-poor regions such as south-west Asia to participate?
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: GBIF is already integrating digitisation progress information from Index Herbariorum into GRSciColl.
  • Response: Work is under way on a MIDS (minimum information about a digital specimen) standard.
• 3.5. Interfaces, APIs and client modules (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Design mock-ups need to show more than just how the catalogue can be viewed by humans.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Major challenges may occur in cases where e.g. a regional catalogue and a disciplinary catalogue both include the same collection in their scope.
• 4.6. Funding and sustainability (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Resources are not evenly distributed globally - we should consider ways to enable altruism and partnerships to support less-resourced collections.
• Presentation: TDWG Collection Descriptions Data Standard Task Group
  • Response: Discussion of possible benefits in exposing information on the collection management system in the collection description record.
• Document: GBIF Services and Support for the Collections Catalogue
  • Response: Collection catalogue interfaces need to show good provenance information on the source of content.

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 25 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 23:00 UTC on 23 April 2020 to 01:00 on 25 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response: Index Herbariorum shows how important it is to understand and meet the needs of collection managers.
  • Question: Can we use ROR/Grid as the underlying catalogue of institutions?
• 1.2. Locating specimens and genetic materials (USE)
  • Response: The catalogue would be valuable for finding (and borrowing) materials - the main challenge is keeping it sufficiently current.
• 1.3. First step towards databasing collections (USE)
  • Question: Step-by-step guidance is essential to enable collections staff to play their part.
• 1.4. Assessing the scale and value of collections (USE)
  • Response: Regular valuation is a standard process in Australia. Calculating indicative value is possible, but care is needed in how this is presented.
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Users of collections need help and clarity about how to cite materials in different situations.
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Examples from Museum für Naturkunde Berlin of collections of additional materials (correspondence, notebooks, etc.) - it is important to be able to show the linkages between these different collections.
  • Response: Xylaria should certainly be included in the collection catalogue.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: All collections staff and other practitioners need to know and recognise their identifiers so that they can take ownership for using them.
• 3.5. Interfaces, APIs and client modules (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Technical aspects associated with GBIF implementing new interfaces to the catalogue.
• 4.1. Ownership of information for each collection (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Personal development is needed to ensure new staff understand the importance of collection information and how to maintain it. This may require assigned roles in some institutions, but always requires recognition for the work involved.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: In Australia, the ALA can act as a knowledge broker between collections and international catalogues.
• Presentation: TDWG Collection Descriptions Data Standard Task Group
  • Response: Registration, or automated discovery, of endpoints associated with collection management systems could be a very flexible approach.
• Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo
  • Response: We may need to build a hierarchically organised catalogue of all scientific collections with separate interfaces and branding for important subsets.
• Comments on this virtual consultation process
  • We very much welcome any thoughts on the process we are following (Discourse topics, summaries, translations, etc.). What works well and what doesn’t?

[dhobern]

Special weekend summary - topics still needing attention

@dhobern

This summary highlights the discussion topics that have so far not been addressed in detail. If you have thoughts and ideas on any of these, please join the discussion.

• 1.5. Increased value for data on specimens, taxonomic publications, etc. (USE)
  • How could the catalogue help us to improve other biodiversity data?
• 1.6. Reducing duplication of effort (USE)
  • Would the catalogue help us to work more efficiently? Examples of this would help us to justify the effort and cost.
• 1.7. Foundation for new and enriched services (USE)
  • Do you have further ideas for uses and applications that the catalogue could support?
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • We would like to understand how the catalogue could deliver extra value at more local scales.
• 2.4. Description of a collection (INFORMATION)
  • Do you have any suggestions for ways to improve or enhance the TDWG Collection Descriptions standard?
• 2.5. Wider data linkages (INFORMATION)
  • Do you have further ideas for important ways that the catalogue could be linked to other data sources?
• 2.6. Information services relating to collections (INFORMATION)
  • Do you have further ideas on information and reports that the catalogue could help to deliver?
• 3.3. Integrated catalogue (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Some needs are best met at the national, regional or community scale, but we welcome ideas for features that should be delivered as part of the global views.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • What can be done to help national, regional or community networks to build and maintain useful catalogues for their use?
• 4.3. Technical infrastructures (GOVERNANCE)
  • Digital infrastructures (data aggregators) play an important part and need funding. How do we balance their needs with those of collections and researchers? How do we all help one another to build something better?
• 4.4. Governance arrangements (GOVERNANCE)
  • Do we need any new governance models to oversee the catalogue?
• 4.6. Funding and sustainability (GOVERNANCE)
  • How can we build the case to get long-term funding to maintain the catalogue? We need to show that the benefits will exceed the costs.
• Comments on this virtual consultation process
  • We very much welcome any thoughts on the process we are following (Discourse topics, summaries, translations, etc.). What works well and what doesn’t?

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 27 April

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 01:00 on 25 April 2020 to 12:00 on 27 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response: ROR currently contains much less detail on institutions than Grid does, but ROR is apparently addressing this.
• 1.4. Assessing the scale and value of collections (USE)
  • Question: Are there any lessons we can learn from the One World Collection initiative?
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Links to examples of Pensoft semantic enrichment of publications, including resolving identifiers for collections and specimens.
  • Response: Plazi includes resolution of collection codes from historical publications to GRSciColl. Need mechanism to add other historical collection codes found in literature.
  • Response: The botanical code does not rigorously enforce correct use of herbarium codes.
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: There may be more sensitivity and legal restrictions around anthropological and paleontological collections.
  • Response: Examples of uses of xylaria.
  • Response: Natural history collection == A collection whose constituent parts (a) are derived from participant entities of natural processes and (b) have been collected to study properties of such processes.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Need to consider how to resolve historical collection identifiers that represent part of a current collection.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Institutions, collections and datasets should be treated as distinct elements, not a hierarchy.
• 2.5. Wider data linkages (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Need to identify benefits from participation.
  • Response: Linkages include references to collections intaxonomic treatments and citation of materials examined.
  • Response: We should consider what content is required so that the catalogue can become the source of the information needed/used by Wikipedia.
• 3.2. Community catalogues (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Question: Will data standards be the same in the community catalogues and the integrated catalogue? Answer - for the most part, yes.
  • Response: Information on bug-collections.org, an initiative to build a catalogue of arthropod collections.
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Details on the Minimum Information about a Digital Specimen (MIDS) standard.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: Publishers are an important user community.
• 4.6. Funding and sustainability (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: GBIF and CETAF have key roles to play as part of the funding and sustainabilily model, but securing long-term funding will be hard.
• Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo
  • Response: Ethnobotanical and zooarchaeological collections are two more examples of collections which may need to be accommodated from multiple perspectives.
• Presentation: CETAF and DiSSCo Collections Registry
  • Response: Discussion of the range of codes associated with RBINS/ISRcNB/KBIN.
• Comments on this virtual consultation process
  • We very much welcome any thoughts on the process we are following (Discourse topics, summaries, translations, etc.). What works well and what doesn’t?

[dhobern]

Daily summary from 28 April 2020

@dhobern

This summary covers activity from 12:00 on 27 April 2020 to 12:00 on 28 April 2020. The following questions and points were raised. Summaries in other languages are posted to the Spanish and Chinese consultation pages. Visit the consultation site to add your thoughts to these and other topics.

• 1.1. Directory to support the collections community (USE)
  • Response : Taxonomists would benefit greatly from a comprehensive catalogue.
• 1.4. Assessing the scale and value of collections (USE)
  • Question: The One World Collection metadata would be a great test dataset.
• 1.5. Increased value for data on specimens, taxonomic publications, etc. (USE)
  • Response: Examples of possible value from making linkages via the ORCIDs for people associated with collections.
• 1.7. Foundation for new and enriched services (USE)
  • Response: Identify possible fundable servers for potential users outside the immediate collections community (geologists, wine industry, etc.).
• 1.8. Improvements to citation and visibility for collections (USE)
  • Response: Examples from cataloguing fish collections of multiple (often invalid) codes used to refer to collections.
• 1.9. Support for national and regional needs and applications (USE)
  • Response: Help collections understand how their strengths complement one another.
• 2.1. Scope for the catalogue and definition of “collection” (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Include important historical collections that no longer exist.
• 2.2. Identifiers for collections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Handle historical collections, including their place now if included in a modern collection.
• 2.3. Hierarchical collection structures and subcollections (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Discussion of relationships between institutions, a hierarchy of collections and datasets.
• 2.4. Description of a collection (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Suggestions for mandatory and desirable data elements in a collection record.
• 2.5. Wider data linkages (INFORMATION)
  • Response: Linking to aggregated information on specimens, collectors, etc. will get complicated and may not be part of the role of the catalogue of collections.
• 3.3. Integrated catalogue (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: Supporting a range of different editing/curation tools and paths is critical.
• 3.4. Collection management systems (TECHNOLOGY)
  • Response: A “software summit” could be an opportunity to bring together developers of collection management systems and other software together to align plans.
  • Response: EML documents combined with TDWG CD elements may be a workable model for data exchange.
  • Response: Additional informaton on the Minimum Information for a Digital Specimen standard.
  • Response: Direct linkages with collection management systems could be an effective option.
• 4.2. Communities of practice (GOVERNANCE)
  • Response: SPNHC has a key role to play in supporting communities of practice.
• Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo
  • Response: Zoos, aquaria and culture collections are sufficiently different that they would need separate support. It would be best to focus on preserved biological collections first.
  • Response: Multiple collection abbreviations may need to be associated with each collection identifier.
• Presentation: CETAF and DiSSCo Collections Registry
  • Response: Example of the range of codes associated with RBINS/ISRcNB/KBIN and how codes are presented by the CETAF Profiles.
• Presentation: The Specifications of Earth Science Collections (CETAF)
  • Response: Status of vocabularies for earth science collection categories.
• Presentation: ALA Collectory
  • Question Has the ALA solved issues recognising the same occurrence record from different sources?
• Comments on this virtual consultation process
  • Response: Discussion around the levels of activity in this consultation. In future consider more visibility via social media, use “likes” to get more signs of participation.