Property:typeOfCollection

[magpiedin]

Label	Type Of Collection
Definition	Additional information that exists that describes the object(s) in the collection.
Usage
Existing property
Existing class
Existing property identifier
Format	Text
Required	No
Repeatable	Yes
Constraints
Examples	PreservedSpecimens, FossilSpecimens, MineralSpecimens, ArchaeologicalArtefacts, EthnographicObjects, HumanRemains, HominidRemains, MaterialSamples, LivingSpecimens
Notes	Terms such as soil, pollen, faeces, muscle, genomic DNA are currently put in preparationType. These terms have been parked for discussion: HumanObservations, MachineObservations.

[rondlg]

Need an appropriate term for "rocks, minerals and meteorites" MineralSpecimen is there as a placeholder till we find a tame geology person to ask.

[qgroom]

In the examples LivingSpecimen and MachineObservation are both mentioned, however, I feel these are both out of scope.

[nielsraes]

Controlled vocabulary?

[mswoodburn]

Any suggestions on where artefacts like models, casts and moulds would fit into this? Neither ArchaeologicalArtefacts or EthnographicObjects quite seem to work...

[wouteraddink]

I was thinking these would fall under preservedSpecimen but I see your point that these may also be related to archaeological or ethnographic objects. They might deserve a new category as they seem to have fairly different characteristics (so probably different dimensions needed to describe them). They are 'indirect evidence' and also that they have some reproducibility, copies of them can be made. Something like InferredSpecimen? There are other objects as well which I would put under preservedSpecimen but are a little problematic: specimen constructs, like bird nests.

[mswoodburn]

I'm inclined to avoid 'specimen', as that term indicates a natural origin. Maybe something like ArtificialObjects? Oxford Languages definition of 'artificial' being 'made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural', seems quite appropriate.

As it's quite a broad term though, that does raise the issue that ArchaeologicalArtefacts and EthnographicObjects could be considered subtypes of it, from more specific origins.

[gdadade]

MaterialSamples are NOT only a result of environmental samples! They can be single organism tissues or genomic DNA as well! see definition of GGBN term materialSampleType for clarification: https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/ggbn:materialSampleType
materialSampleType is not used in ABCD, as ABCD has already the more generic term KindOfUnit.

[gdadade]

Wouldn't it make more sense to extend the existing vocabulary of basisOfRecord? This really seems to be a duplication otherwise.

[gdadade]

Need an appropriate term for "rocks, minerals and meteorites" MineralSpecimen is there as a placeholder till we find a tame geology person to ask.

we have included "MineralSpecimen" in ABCD3.0 as we also needed a term for the geo community, the ABCDEFG team was quite happy about it :)

[tkarim]

We should add a term for collections that are Digital only (that have no physical specimen associated). Examples: audio or video recordings, digital photogrammetry representations of trackways, 3D serial section datasets of fossils (fossil is destroyed in the process of creating digital object).

[wouteraddink]

I would say we should not try to extend the existing vocabulary of basisOfRecord! Given that the 'basis' part of basisOfRecord has led to so many different interpretations, and all the other issues with it, it is unlikely that basisOfRecord is continued in future DwC versions, see also tdwg/dwc#302 and https://discourse.gbif.org/t/basisofrecord-for-plazi-datasets/2238. Also, for BoR different vocabularies are in use, which one to take? (GBIF using a different one from DwC: https://gbif.github.io/parsers/apidocs/org/gbif/api/vocabulary/BasisOfRecord.html).
I question if we need a basisOfCollection at all, also given the problems experienced with BoR in DwC. Using Disciplines as done in the much more recently developed SYNTHESYS collections dashboard seems more useful (e.g. Anthropology, Botany, Extraterrestrial, Geology, Microorganisms, Palaeontology, Zoology Invertebrates, Zoology Vertebrates). This also avoids running into problems where to place artefacts like models, casts and moulds, birds nests etc. It could be proposed to add a controlled vocab for Discipline to DwC (maybe as replacement for BoR).

[catastropheelinggood]

Need an appropriate term for "rocks, minerals and meteorites" MineralSpecimen is there as a placeholder till we find a tame geology person to ask.

we have included "MineralSpecimen" in ABCD3.0 as we also needed a term for the geo community, the ABCDEFG team was quite happy about it :)

My geologist says that MineralSpecimen would be OK but prefers RockSpecimen "because fundamentally all rocks are composed of minerals and/or fossils and/or derivative byproducts from natural processes. Meteorites are a type of rock. 99.99% of mineral specimens are not monomineralic, but rather are rocks that are dominated by a particular mineral, or on which a mineral has grown, or is pedestaled, or the like..."
Maybe would accommodate objects like cores or embedded sediment layers better, but that could also go in MaterialSamples?

[wouteraddink]

I propose to change the property name to: CollectionDiscipline. This is primarily to define what can be expected in terms of data (a geological specimen has other data than a botanical specimen), and for a digital specimen can be used as subtypes of a specimen. It matches with the developments in Synthesys+ and avoids confusion with description of physical appearance like digital vs physical, what to do with moulds, birds nests etc. These can be described by what is called 'materialType' in MIDS, probably not the best name as confusing with 'material' (gold, aluminium etc), but something like MaterialAppearance. currently we call it MaterialType.

suggested controlled vocab with DwC and ABCD comparison:

proposed term - DwC Basis of Record term - ABCD Unit term

Anthropology | PreservedSpecimen | -
PreservedBotany | PreservedSpecimen | HerbariumUnit, MycologicalUnit
LivingBotany | LivingSpecimen | BotanicalGardenUnit
PreservedMicroorganisms | PreservedSpecimen | CultureCollectionUnit?
PlantGeneticResources | LivingSpecimen | PGRUnit
LivingMicroorganisms | LivingSpecimen | CultureCollectionUnit
PreservedZoologyVertebrates | PreservedSpecimen | ZoologicalUnit
LivingZoologyVertebrates | LivingSpecimen | ZoologicalUnit?
PreservedZoologyInvertebrates | PreservedSpecimen | ZoologicalUnit
LivingZoologyInvertebrates | PreservedSpecimen | ZoologicalUnit?
Palaeontology | FossilSpecimen | PaleontologicalUnit
Geology | - | EFG:EarthScienceSpecimen
Extraterrestrial | - | EFG:EarthScienceSpecimen?

for discussion to decide if mycology should be a separate subtype. In Synthesys we decided not needed. Does it need data elements very different from botany? Geology might need to be separated in minerals and rocks if these are different disciplines recording different data elements.

[wouteraddink]

Note that in a specimen bulk data refinery use case, for input you would like to know the materialAppearance (should images be expected of a macrofossil, a herbarium sheet or a jar with alcohol? for output you would like to know collectionDiscipline (what data can be expected to be extracted from the images - stratigraphy, taxonomic identifications, a location in the sea?)

[gdadade]

PreservedMicroorganisms | PreservedSpecimen | CultureCollectionUnit?
PlantGeneticResources | LivingSpecimen | PGRUnit
LivingMicroorganisms | LivingSpecimen | CultureCollectionUnit

Cultures are LivingSpecimens
I would count "PGR" under PreservedBotany and LivingBotany, depending on the collection

[mswoodburn]

Renamed to typeOfCollection as per recent discussions

[jbstatgen]

Hi, as members of SPNHC's Biodiversity Crisis Response Committee, a small group of us has the goal of improving regional diversity and representation within the committee and SPNHC. We were excited to discover GRSciColl (https://www.gbif.org/grscicoll) and decided to use it as tool for our networking.

At this point of time, we plan to only collect basic and contact information. With all the activities towards COP15 and post-2020 monitoring we seem to be just right in time; for the standard, we come a bit early. Thus, we want to ensure that the information, which we collect now will still be valid once GRSciColl expands and adopts the CD standard.

One information that certainly is of interest is which "Disciplines" or organisms/specimens can be expected to be found in the recorded institutions and collections. Browsing CD's GitHub repository, the above vocabulary that @wouteraddink provided (#255 (comment)) is what I would like to know first and foremost: Where are mycological collections that might house specimens of the lichenized ascomycete genus/family I am interested in? Or: Which taxonomic groups/work areas are covered by collections in a specific country or region? Thus, this information is of interest to be collected already now, even if I am not quite sure with which of the currently used fields in GRSciColl to connect it (eg. Institution/Disciplines or Collections/ContentType?). Though, it is of importance that the vocabulary is ok. I am going to propose a modified version of the vocabulary below.

All lists that I have seen so far, seem to mix properties. Accordingly, I am not sure about the differentiation of some of the currently existing fields in GRSciColl, eg. Institution/Type, Institution/Institutional Governance, Institution/Discipline, Collection/ContentType. Is there a place for discussion of such a more general question? Unfortunately, I am still not quite certain about the current data structure of CD, which might answer this question. Thanks a lot for your pointers.

[jbstatgen]

Here a slightly modified list for the vocabulary proposed by @wouteraddink

<style> </style>

Term	Explanation
Virology	Living or Preserved (included in Culture Collections?)
Biomedical	Living or Preserved (?) related to human disease/biology
Culture Collection	Living or Preserved
Genetic Resources	Living (applied?)
Mycology	Living or Preserved
Herbarium	Preserved
Botanical Garden	Living
Zoology Vertebrates	Living or Preserved
Zoology Invertebrates	Living or Preserved
Palaeontology	Fossil
Anthropology	including human evolution, archaeology and current societies
Geology	non-living
Extraterrestrial	non-planetary

resulting in

0 | VIROLOGY_LIVING
1 | VIROLOGY_PRESERVED
2 | BIOMEDICAL
3 | CULTURE_COLLECTION_LIVING
4 | CULTURE_COLLECTION_PRESERVED
5 | GENETIC_RESOURCES
6 | MYCOLOGY_LIVING
7 | MYCOLOGY_PRESERVED
8 | BOTANICAL_GARDEN
9 | HERBARIUM
10 | ZOOLOGY_INVERTEBRATES_LIVING
11 | ZOOLOGY_INVERTEBRATES_PRESERVED
12 | ZOOLOGY_VERTEBRATES_LIVING
13 | ZOOLOGY_VERTEBRATES_PRESERVED
14 | PALAEONTOLOGY
15 | ANTHROPOLOGY
16 | GEOLOGY
17 | EXTRATERRESTRIAL

I am not quite sure, about mixing in "living" and "preserved" into this field, however, they integrate well with the "botanical garden" & "herbarium" distinction in botany. I have an alternative structure, which brings me to my question above.

As an (ex) lichenologist, I will argue for keeping mycology. Reasons are that the botany and mushroom/lichenological/fungal (ascomycetes) communities are quite separate. Also, preserved mycological specimens are stored not only pressed and mounted on sheets, but more often in folded paper packets or boxes, quite distinct from botany.

Virology is alien to me - apart from the effects of certain strains. Viruses are cultured in cell lines, yes-no -> thus part of "culture collections"? Is there a distinction between living/preserved collections?

[jbstatgen]

Having had troubles to define fields for basic summary information about institutions/collections/organizations, I am currently seeing five fields: GovernanceFunding, Disciplines, Functions, LiveMaterial, OrganizationRole with the following vocabularies. Since these complement and in part explain each other, I am listing them here:

GovernanceFunding (field in GRSciColl, terms modified)
ForProfit (Business, Industry, Services), Government(Agencies, Offices), NonProfit (Civil Society, NGOs), Private (Expert, Patron), Public (Education, Research, Management), Other

Disciplines (see examples at Property:Discipline, #320 and this issue here)
Virology, Mycology, Botany, Zoology Vertebrates, Zoology Invertebrates, Biomedical (maybe remove, but Anthropology seems quite different from human medicine s.lat.), Anthropology Palaeontology, Geology, Extraterrestrial, Other Geo/Biodiversity, Literature, Unspecified

Functions (based on https://grid.ac/pages/policies vocabulary, modified)
Archive/Repository, Business, Education, Management, Research, Other

LiveMaterials (see this thread)
non-biological (eg. literature, rocks, minerals, sediment cores), living, preserved, fossil (in Anthropology this might be of interest, otherwise it is synonymous with Palaeontology)

OrganizationRoles since different organizational units might have different roles, alternatively InstitutionRoles (based on NCD vocabulary for InstitutionType, https://tdwg.github.io/ontology/ontology/voc/InstitutionType.rdf)
Aquarium, Archive, Biomedical, Botanical garden, Conservation, Field station, Genetic Resources (Reproductive Material: horticultural institutions, seed banks, gene banks, landraces centers, rescue stations, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, breeding, propagation, trials), Herbarium, Historical society, Independent expert, Laboratory, Library, Management, Museum, Nature education center, Non governmental/civil society organization, Non university college, Park (nature reserve), Repository, Research institute, School, Science center, Society, University, Zoo, Other

What do you think? Could this make sense and be usable? Any feedback is very much appreciated.

[jbstatgen]

Some of you know me, though I recognized that my nick doesn't easily resolve: Jutta Buschbom, Statistical Genetics, Germany.

As part of the Regional Groups/Diversity working group of SPNHC's Biodiversity Crisis Response Committee, we would very much appreciate you feedback and insights. Thanks a lot.

[ben-norton]

One suggestion. I have a rule of thumb regarding the use of the term 'Other'. It presents significant challenges, but always produces better results. The light version of the rule is "If one of the values is 'Other', then the term needs to be reconsidered". The more stringent version is "If a value is Other, then the term is wrong". There are always exceptions, but 9/10 it holds. There has got to be a better way to achieve the goal of defining organization-level attributes. Easier said than done.

[rondlg]

The term MaterialSample that covers things like DNA samples, tissue samples or environmental samples is removed from this property because it is now in the collectionBaseType property alongside informationArtefact

[rondlg]

For future reference: the Material Sample group has its own github issues to define some of the attributes of this property:

http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/MaterialSample

• Original description: A physical result of a sampling (or subsampling) event. In biological collections, the material sample is typically collected, and either preserved or destructively processed.
• Primary Deliverable - MaterialSample definition

http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/FossilSpecimen

• Original description: A preserved specimen that is a fossil.
• Primary Deliverable - FossilSpecimen definition

http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/PreservedSpecimen

• Original description: A specimen that has been preserved.
  -Primary Deliverable - PreservedSpecimen definition

http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/LivingSpecimen

• Original description: A specimen that is alive.
  -Primary Deliverable - LivingSpecimen definition