P02 categories for OBIS P01 biological parameter codes

[gwemon]

Could I get some input about whether and how you would like to split biological parameters at the P02 group level (i.e. the level above P01 that was originally designed to facilitate discovery of the P01). Do you think this would be a good idea? or do you prefer to keep it as is? Currently we only have one "bucket" P02 grouping code http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P02/current/BPRP/ which was created as a temporary measure to group together the codes we curate for the OBIS biological data. We could create better categorisation to help discovery.

[gwemon]

For example if we look at morphological parameters. How do we want those to be discovered using the hierarchy? P08 > P03 > P02 >P01? Should we consider a new P03 for "Morphological parameters" (or something equivalent) that would come under P08::DS01 for Biological oceanography? Then link all the existing group-specific morphological and physiological P02 groups to it and maybe add one for "OBIS-schema morphological parameters"? Just sharing my thoughts at this stage.

[gwemon]

@JoBeja you may have missed this but I created this ticket following your suggestion in Slack. I would really welcome input from proficient OBIS/EMODnet biology users and data managers. Many thanks.

[marc-portier]

Not sure if it helps this discussion (as it is quite void of any appreciation of domain specific understanding) but I just grabbed the following csv from the nvs sparql service:

bprp-measurement-details.csv

for the example at hand (SND:P02::BPRP) it shows the multitude of P01 associated to it + the extra classifiers / insights one could retrieve from its connections to other collections.

Just purely looking at the distributions of those it looks like only a limited amount of narrowing down will be possible at the moment.

Anyway, all depends on the use case of course, and how people want to make sense of this?