Allow sharing of IUCN red list category

[mdoering]

An important dataset for sharing is the (global) IUCN red-list. There is no way currently in ColDP to share the realist category.

In DwC-A a "threat status" can be assigned to a distribution record, keeping in mind that there are also national realists that evaluate the realist category in a regional context. It is a little cumbersome though in DwC to share the global status as part of a distribution record with area=global. We could do the same approach in ColDP, but maybe it is (also) useful to add a single iucnRedlistCategory field in the main taxon entity for the global status? There could even be a metadata context that describes the regional context of the threat status so that a French species redlist dataset would share the redlist category in the taxon table too, but declare a regional context in the metadata?

[dhobern]

Thanks, Markus.

This is indeed important. I wonder though whether doing it specifically for iucnRedlistCategory is unnecessarily limiting. Why can't we have a more general species status element where best practice is to use URIs from controlled vocabularies representing known statuses? This would allow introduced/pest species lists etc. to be handled the same way.

I can see I'm sliding into proposing StatusCore ...

Donald

--

Donald Hobern / dhobern@gmail.com / +61 420511471 Araba Bioscan Project https://stangeia.hobern.net/araba-bioscan-project/ / Pterophoroidea https://pterophoroidea.hobern.net/ / Alucitoidea https://alucitoidea.hobern.net/ / BOLD Australia https://bold-au.hobern.net/ ORCID: 0000-0001-6492-4016 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6492-4016 / Blog https://stangeia.hobern.net/ / iNaturalist https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/people/dhobern / Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/dhobern// GitHub https://github.com/dhobern / Twitter https://twitter.com/dhobern

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 20:06, Markus Döring notifications@github.com wrote:

An important dataset for sharing is the (global) IUCN red-list https://www.gbif.org/dataset/19491596-35ae-4a91-9a98-85cf505f1bd3. There is no way currently in ColDP to share the realist category.

In DwC-A a "threat status" can be assigned to a distribution record, keeping in mind that there are also national realists that evaluate the realist category in a regional context. It is a little cumbersome though in DwC to share the global status as part of a distribution record with area=global. We could do the same approach in ColDP, but maybe it is (also) useful to add a single iucnRedlistCategory field in the main taxon entity for the global status? There could even be a metadata context that describes the regional context of the threat status so that a French species redlist dataset would share the redlist category in the taxon table too, but declare a regional context in the metadata?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/coldp/issues/46, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHP4ZRRDBL2AT5DLORCWQDS6TVRRANCNFSM4XQKPCLQ .

[mdoering]

if we wanna make it more generic we would need a new entity I reckon as you can have multiple values from different vocabularies easily. And probably also want it to be referenced and applied to a region only.

The beauty with a redlistCategory only is that its simple and has very clear semantics with an existing vocabulary. Options then are:

1. iucnRedlistCategory field in Taxon/NameUsage
2. iucnRedlistCategory field in Distribution to allow for non global assessments
3. a new SpeciesAssessment entity with various fields related to Taxon/NameUsage including:
   • taxonID
   • type - the kind of assessment, e.g. redlistCategory, invasiveness, ...
   • status
   • area
   • referenceID
   • assessedOn - when it was done
   • reviewer - who did the assessment
   • remarks

The species assessment then looks like a more generic way of sharing species distributions...

[mdoering]

@dhobern with TaxonProperty existing, is this sth that can be covered that way? I would think something more specific is easier to use, so I guess no.

Would you think a single new field in Taxon (we cannot call it status as this is taken for taxonomic status) is good enough or that we rather need a complex data type with who assessed it, references etc?

[dhobern]

I think TaxonProperty would be a better choice than a property in the Taxon record, although I would hope users have the option to denormalise down into the Taxon or NameUsage record rather than having to join a trivial table.

I prefer the Distribution option because we need the spatial scoping in many cases, it goes nicely with the native/non-native status part, and it feels like the producers and consumers of redlists and national lists are likely to overlap significantly. We can default the scope to "global" if nothing more specific is provided.

[mdoering]

So much like the existing https://rs.gbif.org/extension/gbif/1.0/distribution_2020-07-15.xml ?

[dhobern]

Yes ...