Collections Catalogue - Daily Summaries

[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.