It is good to have such type of communication in every aspect to have common good platform. I have one question, can i secure a resource which is found in GBIF? Assume i am a user in GBIF platform, so rather than accessing the whole document a few of them might be secured and should be communicated to the system manager. Can i?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 8:21 PM Quentin Groom < [email protected]> 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] > Skype name: qgroom > Website: www.botanicgarden.be > > On 28 June 2018 at 16:07, Rui Figueira <[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 [email protected] >> Instituto Superior de Agronomia >> Herbário >> Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal >> Tel. +351 213653165 | Fax. +351 >> 213653195http://www.gbif.pthttp://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]> <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Rui Figueira <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 15.45 >> *To: *Markus Döring <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]>, helpdesk <[email protected]> <[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, 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] >> >> 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 <[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, 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, >> 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? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rui >> >> -- >> ------------------ >> >> Rui Figueira >> Coordenador do Nó Português do GBIF >> [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] >> https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPT mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt >> >> > _______________________________________________ > IPT mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt >
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
