Collections Catalogue - Daily Summaries

[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?