@dshorthouse I still see a place for DwC as a standard for the data and a role for aggregators as they currently exist. However, as I outlined in my tree analogy in the Structures and Responsibilities thread (Structure and responsibilities of a #digextspecimen - #11 by abentley) there would be a shift in the way DwC is used to describe objects as transactions rather than snapshots. There would need to be some articulation of the transaction type (is citation of, is Genbank sequence of, is determination of, etc.) but the individual elements could and should still follow current DwC fields. There is also no reason why the initial object could not be an image, video or vocalization to accommodate observation type records. There are obviously a lot of details missing here but this is the concept I envisage.