Thanks Tim, Happy to see that you are designing a more expressive model for data exchange and indexing. Species interactions is a good example to start with, but I would rather see a more open model allowing relations between all possible entities we are dealing with: specimens, species, locations, events, people, materials, multimedia, projects...
I've recently experimented the Frictionless Data <https://frictionlessdata.io/> that offers a truly entity relationship model for data publication. We have to go beyond the DwC star schema and present a well defined DarwinCore schema that supports all possible interactions (relations). I do hope nodes experience will be taken into account and GBIF + TDWG community will come with data model everyone can accept and use. I'm looking forward to participate to this new data exchange model Best regards, -- Ir Andre Heughebaert GBIF Node Manager at Belgian Biodiversity Platform <http://www.biodiversity.be> +32(0)2238 3796 Av. Louise 231 Louizalaan B-1050 Brussels ORCID 0000-0002-7839-5300 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-5300> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 15:52, Tim Robertson <trobert...@gbif.org> 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 <ipt-boun...@lists.gbif.org> on behalf of Rui Figueira < > ruifigue...@isa.ulisboa.pt> > *Date: *Thursday, 28 June 2018 at 15.45 > *To: *Markus Döring <mdoer...@gbif.org> > *Cc: *"ipt@lists.gbif.org" <ipt@lists.gbif.org>, helpdesk < > helpd...@gbif.org> > *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 > > 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> > 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 > 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 >
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org https://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
