You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have reviewed the GGBN standard, and I don't find any issues that prevent it from being ratified by TDWG. I think GGBN makes a fine addition to the TDWG and GSC standards collections, especially in how that it bridges those two organizations and others.
One suggestion, which does not directly impact the standard vocabularies, is to move a way from the use of "tissue sample". Most tissue samples (especially outside humans) are mixtures of many tissues, either an organ (like a leaf) or part of an organ (like a tail or toe clip). For example, in GSC's Plant specimen contextual data consensus (https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giw002), we replaced "tissue type" with "plant structure" so that researchers could be more specific in describing the type of specimen that came from an organisms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have reviewed the GGBN standard, and I don't find any issues that prevent it from being ratified by TDWG. I think GGBN makes a fine addition to the TDWG and GSC standards collections, especially in how that it bridges those two organizations and others.
One suggestion, which does not directly impact the standard vocabularies, is to move a way from the use of "tissue sample". Most tissue samples (especially outside humans) are mixtures of many tissues, either an organ (like a leaf) or part of an organ (like a tail or toe clip). For example, in GSC's Plant specimen contextual data consensus (https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giw002), we replaced "tissue type" with "plant structure" so that researchers could be more specific in describing the type of specimen that came from an organisms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: