Hi Quentin,

Thank you very much, this is an excellent example. Actually, we will also prepare a checklist dataset, so this is really helpful also for that exercise.

About interactions, I hope there is enough momentum to get it going. The TDWG is a good opportunity. Another workshop on the topic was the Globis-B workshop in Bari, last February, which feedback might be important also. The GBIF Secretariat (Dmitry) was also represented there, so he might have given feedback on how the support of species interaction is important.

Kind regards,

Rui


On 06/28/2018 03:42 PM, Quentin Groom wrote:
Hi Rui,
if you're interested we also published a checklist of rust fungi recently using the resource relationship extension (https://www.gbif.org/dataset/b043c480-dd36-4f4f-aa82-e188753ff09d). I total agree with you about the importance of species interactions. I'm glad GBIF has some plans for this. We have an interactions workshop at this year's TDWG meeting and I hope we will hear more about approaches to this problem.
Quentin



Dr. Quentin Groom
(Botany and Information Technology)

Botanic Garden Meise
Domein van Bouchout
B-1860 Meise
Belgium

ORCID: 0000-0002-0596-5376 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0596-5376>

Landline; +32 (0) 226 009 20 ext. 364
FAX:      +32 (0) 226 009 45

E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Skype name: qgroom
Website: www.botanicgarden.be <http://www.botanicgarden.be>

On 28 June 2018 at 16:07, Rui Figueira <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hi Tim,

    I am glad to hear that species interactions will be incorporated
    in the next data model and indexing. I agree that it is not an
    easy task, but it is getting more and more attention, so I would
    say that supporting it is very important for GBIF in the future.

    Best regards,

    Rui

    ------------------

    Rui Figueira
    Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    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 02:52 PM, Tim Robertson wrote:

    Thanks for raising this Rui

    This is just a note to say that we are beginning to discuss
    starting the design of a more expressive model for data exchange,
    and indexing.

    I am afraid that is not a short term task though, but it will of
    course cover interactions (species related and evidence of
    interactions). As things progress, your input would be very
    welcome, both on this topic and the broader model.

    Thanks,

    Tim

    *From: *IPT <[email protected]>
    <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Rui Figueira
    <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Date: *Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 15.45
    *To: *Markus Döring <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Cc: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]>
    <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>, helpdesk
    <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
    *Subject: *Re: [IPT] update of Darwin Core Resource Relationship
    extension

    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
    <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
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    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
        <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
        <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
        
<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
        
<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
        <http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#associatedTaxa>

        With regards,

        Markus



            On 28. Jun 2018, at 12:14, Rui Figueira
            <[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
            <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
            <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
            [email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>
            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
            [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
            https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
            <https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt>





    _______________________________________________
    IPT mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
    <https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt>



_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt

Reply via email to