Hi Markus,
Thank you for your quick reply.
I understand the need to make the updated extension "correct",
accordingly to the "class".
However, the lack of implementation on GBIF in ingesting related
resources is a point of concern.
It brings to my memory the XVII Congress of the European Mycological
Association (EMA), in 2015, in Madeira. In that congress, Dmitry Schigel
and myself, we were invited to organise a symposium on Biodiversity
Informatics and Fungal Data, in the end of the first day. But, in the
opening plenary session of the the conference, the President of EMA,
David Minter, stated with emphasis that GBIF deliberately lacked support
to all mycological researcher community. His main argument was that GBIF
does not support interactions between species, which is critical data
for many fungi species. Unfortunately, I think we have to agree with him!
Using associatedTaxa is a limited solution if we want to document the
occurrence of the interaction. And using the extension will create
problems when documenting interactions between different biological
groups, namely in the metadata description.
I came across this problem precisely because I am preparing and update
of a dataset of fungi
https://www.gbif.org/dataset/651c0bec-bd78-4300-bbb0-5ed172fc82af, where
all fungi are associated with a plant host. The use of the extension
would allow us to define, for example, the establishment means of the
host. But, if GBIF is not ingesting the resource relationship, we are
only left with the option of using associatedTaxa and occurrenceRemarks
to document interactions, which is not my preferred option.
Best regards,
Rui
------------------
Rui Figueira
Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF
ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt
Instituto Superior de Agronomia
Herbário
Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
Tel. +351 213653165 | Fax. +351 213653195
http://www.gbif.pt
http://www.isa.ulisboa.pt
On 06/28/2018 11:38 AM, Markus Döring wrote:
Hi Rui,
the scientificName term was dropped because it is not part of the
regular DwC relation "class":
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#relindex
The resource relation can relate any kind of things and GBIF needs to
lookup the ids to find the scientificName of the related resource in
your case. Unfortunately this is not implemented right now, so by
upgrading to the latest "correct" version of the extension you will
lose the related scientific name on the GBIF occurrence page.
When I look at your example the data is a little unexpected though.
The relatedResourceID is given as 701c94f1-16eb-4c1e-8449-f3b046100187:
https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/1585354292/verbatim
This should be the occurrenceID of the occurrence record for the plant
it feeds on (Pistacia terebinthus)
If I lookup this record in your dataset it is missing:
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?dataset_key=85a3c886-3312-45c9-b040-4d7634653246&occurrence_id=701c94f1-16eb-4c1e-8449-f3b046100187&advanced=1
If I look at the taxonomic overview of your dataset it is all
Arthropoda, so the related food plants all seem to be excluded?
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/taxonomy?dataset_key=85a3c886-3312-45c9-b040-4d7634653246&advanced=1
If you only want to annotate an occurrence record with the plant it
feeds on you should not be using the relations extension but instead
look into dwc:associatedTaxa:
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#associatedTaxa
With regards,
Markus
On 28. Jun 2018, at 12:14, Rui Figueira <ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt
<mailto:ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt>> wrote:
Hi IPT list members,
Could anyone help me to understand what are the implications of doing
an update of the Darwin Core Resource Relationship extension, that
our IPT installation is asking to update?
I am particularly concerned with the dataset
http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=edp_tua_arthropoda_eia, that is
using this extension. The table resourcerelationship.txt in the
dataset uses the term scientificName to identify the name of the tree
where larva of butterflies feed on. This is reflected in the
occurrence data at gbif.org <http://gbif.org>, for example, in this
record: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292.
I noticed that the update of the extension dropped the term
scientificName. So, could anyone guide me on the changes that I need
to do in the dataset, in order to be able to update the extension and
have the same or equivalent information about the relationship in the
record at https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292?
<https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1585354292?>
Best regards,
Rui
--
------------------
Rui Figueira
Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF
ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt <mailto:ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt>
Instituto Superior de Agronomia
Herbário
Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
Tel. +351 213653165 | Fax. +351 213653195
http://www.gbif.pt
http://www.isa.ulisboa.pt
_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
