Geocode source

[acvaughan]

This is a mixed concept and only partly corresponds with abcd:CoordinateMethod. There is no ABCD concept to deal with the first two items in the HISPID vocabulary ('collector' and 'compiler'), but there is one in Darwin Core: dwc:georeferencedBy. This element should be added to ABCD as well. A person’s name might be more useful than just 'collector' or 'compiler', but would probably have to be translated back in AVH for privacy reasons. (From the minutes of the 2012 HISCOM meeting: http://hiscom.rbg.vic.gov.au/wiki/HISCOM_2012_AGM_Canberra_minutes#11._HISPID.)

[nielsklazenga]

Fully agree.

I think for individual collections databases it is better to have the names, but for AVH the collector/curator distinction is more useful. However, the definition of the Darwin Core term says 'A list (concatenated and separated) of names of people, groups, or organizations', so I think it would be best to give the name(s) of the collector(s) when the record has been georeferenced by the collector (no privacy issues there) and the name of the institution when the record has been georeferenced by the curator; for exchange specimens it could be the name of the donor institution.

[nielsklazenga]

MEL already delivers georeferencedBy with ABCD. You can do that by hanging it off the UnitExtension (DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/UnitExtension) element, just like you could hang the HISPID extensions off that element.

[acvaughan]

The thing about privacy was in the minutes of the meeting, but I can't actually see that it's a real issue. Perhaps it's worth asking the herbarium curators if they care if they're associated with being at work on a particular day? Or perhaps the concern is more about being associated with georeferencing errors, rather than with being at work?

[nielsklazenga]

The solution I suggested in my first comment works regardless of whether privacy is an issue or not. We don't have to say in HISPID whether providers should deliver a person's name or an institution name; providers can decide that for themselves. I wonder how useful it would be to know who exactly did the georeference when it was done by a data entry person. Most providers won't even be able to provide that information, but they will be able to tell when it was done at their institution, or, in case of an exchange specimen, at the institution the specimen originated from.

I was actually so pleased with my solution that I already implemented it in the MEL provider.

[nielsklazenga]

I think the mapping of the HISPID Geocode source to the ABCD CoordinateMethod, from which it automatically maps to the Darwin Core georeferenceProtocol, was unfortunate. We should consider, after splitting off the georeferencedBy values, to drop the rest of the vocabulary and provide more detailed information under the dwc:georeferenceSources term (which was already available in HISPID 5).

Actually, having read through the stuff that I just put in below again, I now think that the mapping in HISPID 5 was correct, but that there is a big discrepancy between the definitions in HISPID 5 and Darwin Core, and that the mapping from ABCD to Darwin Core not quite as straightforward as indicated in the ABCD documentation. Makes a real cocktail of different things of the vocabulary.

From HISPID 5 schema:

<xs:element name="CoordinateMethod" type="hispid:CoordinateMethodEnum" minOccurs="0">
    <xs:annotation>
        <xs:documentation>Coordinates measuring system e.g. GPS, field map reference, 
                  inferred map reference. Equivalent to "GeoreferenceProtocol" in DwC Geospatial 
                  Extension 1.4.</xs:documentation>
    </xs:annotation>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="GeoreferenceSources" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0">
    <xs:annotation>
        <xs:documentation>[DwC Geospatial Extension v. 1.4:] A list of maps, gazetteers or other 
                  resources used to georeference the locality. The content of this concept is meant 
                  to be specific enough to allow anyone in the future to use the same resource to 
                  georeference the same locality. Example: "USGS 1:24000 Florence Montana 
                  Quad".</xs:documentation>
    </xs:annotation>
</xs:element>

And Darwin Core:

Term Name:	georeferenceProtocol
Identifier:	http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/georeferenceProtocol
Class:	http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location
Definition:	A description or reference to the methods used to determine the spatial footprint, coordinates, and uncertainties.
Comment:	Examples: "Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing. (Chapman and Wieczorek, eds. 2006). Global Biodiversity Information Facility.", "MaNIS/HerpNet/ORNIS Georeferencing Guidelines", "Georeferencing Quick Reference Guide". For discussion see http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/dwc:georeferenceProtocol
Details:	georeferenceProtocol

[nielsklazenga]

"I think for individual collections databases it is better to have the names, but for AVH the collector/curator distinction is more useful. However, the definition of the Darwin Core term says 'A list (concatenated and separated) of names of people, groups, or organizations', so I think it would be best to give the name(s) of the collector(s) when the record has been georeferenced by the collector (no privacy issues there) and the name of the institution when the record has been georeferenced by the curator; for exchange specimens it could be the name of the donor institution."

Hobart, 2015-10-20: Agreed