-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
What is the type
field?
#1
Comments
On the Neotoma (e.g., @SimonGoring or @IceAgeEcologist) side we had elected to use "Dataset", part of the Dublin Core controlled vocabulary, but as @mmcclenn pointed out, it may be better suited to an "Occurrence" type. @tucotuco, any chance you might weigh in on this? |
Hi folks, The Dublin Core type vocabulary applies strictly to the dcterms:type term. Occurrence is a Darwin Core class and not a valid value for that term. To be more specific than dcterms:type allows, Darwin Core has the basisOfRecord term (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#basisOfRecord), whose range includes the Darwin Core classes PreservedSpecimen, LivingSpecimen, FossilSpecimen, MaterialSample, MachineObservation, and HumanObservation. The range of the dcterms:type term include Event, Dataset, PhysicalObject, Sound, StillImage, MovingImage, and Text. Does that help? |
Thanks @tucotuco, I think that makes sense. Makes it a bit more complicated for us though :) I think we need to split the type and basis of record by datasettype then. I wonder what we should do about records in the PaleoDB that have come in from DeepDive, or that were entered from published records. I assume most fossil occurrences come from physical specimens, as do our pollen records (for example), but some must come from only a text record without knowledge of the actual physical specimen. Is that correct @mmcclenn @cambro or @markuhen ? So we'd need some sort of scheme to differentiate between: dcterms:type=PhysicalObject and dwc:basisOfRecord=FossilSpecimen Do I have the gist of this right? |
To me, yes, that is the correct use of the type fields. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Simon notifications@github.com wrote:
|
All, Yes. For the most part, all PBDB records are ultimately based on a Thanks, Mark On 7/28/16 6:22 PM, Simon wrote:
Mark D. Uhen |
I agree with that, I'm just wondering if we need to make a distinction between records that were entered where we know the specimen, or its general location (museum, or whatever) vs. something that was pulled in programmatically. |
Simon, Yes. I think we need to distinguish between these two types of records. Thanks much, Mark On 8/1/16 11:27 AM, Simon wrote:
Mark D. Uhen |
The
type
field for the Occurrence is causing some questions. Do we use the controlled terminology based on the Dublin Core terminology as listed here or isOccurrence
an accepted field? How do we record actual physical specimens?http://tools.gbif.org/dwca-validator/extension.do?id=dwc:Occurrence
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: