Clarification of ac:physicalSetting

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. Provide an ac Term Name or Label. ac:physicalSetting 
http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List_%281.0_normative%29#physicalSe
tting

2. Describe the defect or lack of clarity you find in the term. 

From Paul Flemons <Paul.Flemons@austmus.gov.au> during public comment:

physicalSetting – this definition appears ambiguous and possibly 
unnecessarily restrictive, only applying to “Unmodified” objects  
(definition of unmodified?) in either natural setting of the unmodified object 
or the artificial setting.  What about an organism that occurs in an unnatural 
setting, or a “natural” setting that has been slightly modified by weeds or 
other disturbance? It is useful to be able to express these type of properties, 
and suspect this is confounding two factors in the definition (removing 
reference to the state of the object being photographed would be a good start).

Comment from Steve: If AC is intended to be used to describe "modified" objects 
such as museum specimens, then there may be some benefit to allowing more than 
the two values for this term that are stated in the definition.  In any case, 
it would be good at least to clarify the meaning of "unmodified" and the 
rational for using this term only with unmodified objects.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 6 Apr 2013 at 9:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I concur and will try to get other committee members to make a suggestion. 
Nominally making Annette the owner as it seems like her experience is relevant

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 3:16

• Added labels: Type-Defect, Priority-Critical, Milestone-Release1.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 4:02

• Now blocking: #81

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 4:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I really don't remember the term "unmodified" object being in there before, but 
it has been a while since I worked on this.  I agree that stating unmodified is 
restrictive, and should be removed.  

An additional term applying to setting that could be included within the 
constrained vocabulary could also be "modified" 

The goal of this is to avoid situations where photographs of specimens in 
artifical settings are passed off as typical of natural habitat.  I know of two 
photographers and one movie crew that typically create backdrops or sets for 
the vertebrates they were photographing/filming.  Whether the object istself is 
modified or not is a separate question, which I would hope it would be noted in 
the physical description at least.

Original comment by alols...@gmail.com on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So my minor edit to 
http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List_(DRAFT_of_1.0_normative)#ac:ph
ysicalSetting especially the Definition and the Notes. I suggested "Edited" 
instead of "Modified", but neither captures all cases.

As a matter of knowledge representation, it may be quite difficult to 
distinguish a zoo from a physical set established entirely for the purpose of 
acquiring the media. Ditto for an aquarium, where, even more than in a zoo, 
some of the setting is quite artificial and intended to serve as a simulation 
of natural features; exactly what such photographers do. Also true of dioramas 
in natural history museums. 

The problem is likely to be that biologists probably think that zoos are 
"Natural" because professional biologists have made the simulations as close to 
typical habitiat of the species in the wild as local conditions, the tolerance 
of the critters, and the zoo budgets permit. Similarly for botanical gardens.

I can live with whatever you and Gregor agree to.  Possibly we should add to 
the notes something like "Communities of practice should form best practices 
for the use of these controlled terms."

Original comment by morris.bob on 16 Jul 2013 at 10:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So I would not use the term edited, as the physical setting can be not only 
digitally edited, but physically modified.  "Edited" nowadays implies digital.  
modified is an overarching term that is better suited.  "Modified" would 
include the case of an enclosed setting within a natural environment, for 
instance, and would also be suited in select instances for zoos.  But having 
worked in a zoo for years, most zoo folks know that the setting is artifical.  
Providing that as an example will help folks select the appropriate vocabulary.

And we can only do what we can do.  As  you suggest, adding to the notes 
something about best practices is appropriate.  (your phrasing works.).  And, 
as we have stated for most of these terms - many of these type of suggestions 
do belong in a Best Practices document; we just need someone to write it first. 
  Actually, first we need someone to pay for someone to write it.  ;-).

Original comment by alols...@gmail.com on 19 Jul 2013 at 8:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have added "Communities of practice should form best practices for the use of 
these controlled terms." to the Notes item of ac:physicalSetting and am closing 
this as Fixed.

Original comment by morris.bob on 18 Aug 2013 at 4:13

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 18 Aug 2013 at 4:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

added self to cc list

Original comment by morris.bob on 25 Aug 2013 at 9:02