observation not validated

[gbif-portal]

observation not validated

I noticed that on the landing page of this occurrence (with the publisher), it says that the observation hasn't been validated. If that's the case, should the occurrence maybe not be omitted from the dataset published to GBIF?

---

User provided contact info: @dnoesgaard System: Chrome 73.0.3683 / Mac OS X 10.14.4 User: See in registry Referer: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1933124565 Window size: width 2560 - height 1172 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-varnish-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),index:'prod-portal-',interval:auto,query:(query_string:(analyze_wildcard:!t,query:'response:%3E499')),sort:!('@timestamp',desc))) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL

[ManonGros]

Contacted publisher by email and also suggested an alternative: perhaps it would be a good idea to share the verification status as well? (for example in the occurrenceRemarks field).

[dagendresen]

Artsdatabanken engages with the Norwegian Societies for birds, botany, zoology, fungi, ... organized under Sabima to perform an extra quality check for this citizen science reported species occurrence data . I suspect that Sabima does not have the capacity to validate ALL citizen science reports and focuses on occurrences for the threatened species etc assessments and occurrences flagged by other citizen scientists. And I suspect that the primary data quality validation is performed by peer citizen scientists - in the same manner as is done in e.g. iNaturalist.

https://artsdatabanken.no/Pages/231165

I believe that Sabima maybe also is performing this quality validation for occurrence data (for red listing assessments etc) from other sources, including data publishers outside of Norway...? So the validation is maybe not strictly limited only to the citizen science dataset...??

The data publisher might complement with more precise details.

[dagendresen]

Apropos sharing the validation status in GBIF - NBIC has previously asked for how to do this!! And, if I recall the HISPID term correctly, I proposed to use the HISPID Verification Level descriptor (maybe together with dynamicProperties). (I mean to recall there was also an even better match among the HISPID descriptors).

https://hiscom.rbg.vic.gov.au/wiki/HISPID_5_for_HISPID_Users#Verification_Group

[dagendresen]

https://hiscom.github.io/hispid/terms/#identificationVerificationStatus https://hiscom.github.io/hispid/terms/#georeferenceVerificationStatus

[dagendresen]

Found the request from Artsdatabanken on including the verification status into the GBIF data stream:

Knut Anders Hovstad wrote on 2020-02-11: I think there should be a difference between the person(s) who have identified an observation to taxon (i.e. identifiedBy, which of course can be a list) and others who later have confirmed the identification of taxon done by the first person. Is there an unequivocal or “best practice” way to do this in Darwin Core? The distinction between identifiedBy and confirmed by seems to be missing for many records in GBIF and Artskart, and I wonder what the reason for this is?

Dag Endresen wrote on 2020-02-11 On terms for verification of data records (eg. by Sabima), as far as I know, there is no way to express this using Darwin Core terms. There is another older data standard previously maintained by TDWG, HISPID3, that includes such terms. http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/HISCOM/HISPID/HISPID3/H3.html#_Toc366998637 It is possible that the process on the TDWG Collections Descriptions could develop renewed support for such terms for verification. There is a virtual workshop in March that perhaps might be an appropriate forum to suggest such a process... https://www.gbif.org/news/6TvOkvpPlxRm5vHxljYNN5/virtual-workshop-planned-on-advancing-the-catalogue-of-the-worlds-natural-history-collections It is of course possible to express any therms including these HISPID3 verification terms in a Darwin Core archive using the MeasurementOrFact extension (or by using the dynamicProperties). Then next maybe Artskart could load the verification information from here?

[ManonGros]

Hi @dagendresen thank you for your reply! I don't know what would be the best way to do that, maybe @ahahn-gbif has some input?

I see that the validation status is already in the occurrence Field Notes and identification. I think I should have paid more attention before reaching out.

I will leave the issue open in case someone has more ideas on the topic.