# Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo

**URL:** https://discourse.gbif.org/t/document-10-recommendations-from-dissco/2066
**Category:** Collections Catalogue
**Created:** [April 17, 2020, 8:19am UTC](https://discourse.gbif.org/t/document-10-recommendations-from-dissco/2066 "2020-04-17T08:19:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![pzermoglio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@pzermoglio](https://discourse.gbif.org/u/pzermoglio)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2020, 5:24pm UTC](https://discourse.gbif.org/t/document-10-recommendations-from-dissco/2066/5 "2020-04-25T17:24:29Z")

</div>

Similar issues arise for ethnobotanical and zooarchaeological collections. I guess these would fall into @dhobern’s 1. all scientific collections, and 2. all preserved biological collections. But given they too (as for paleo) have their own characteristics and requirements, should it be considered to include a 5. all anthropological collections? as mirroring the all geoscience collections. One could start with a few target catalogues in mind, but a nested structure that allows augmentation of general scope and leaves place for future interlinking as other communities get on board would seem a good way to go.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.gbif.org/t/document-10-recommendations-from-dissco/2066)._