MIDS Element - 4. SpecimenType

[emhaston]

Information Element Name	SpecimenType
Modified	2023/12/14
Label	Specimen Type
Definition	High-level term to delimit and define specimens. For example: preserved specimen, fossil specimen, as opposed to observation.
Purpose	To delimit the specimens to which the MIDS specification refers.
Applicable standard(s)/recommendation(s)	It is recommended to use the ontology being developed for the DwC term MaterialEntity.
Examples	PreservedSpecimen, FossilSpecimen
Required (Biological/Geological/Paelaeontological)	Yes (all)
Constraints
Element specification status	agreed; accepted in specification
Notes	These data are often part of the metadata for a dataset.

[emhaston]

I have created a higher level classification element here which can be used to delimit the specimens to which MIDS refers. I believe that this is in line with the TDWG Material-Sample Task group https://github.com/tdwg/material-sample.

Please can you let me know if you agree with this element as outlined above.

[emhaston]

Task Group meeting (2 June 2022) Notes for this element: MaterialSampleType – use to delimit the specimens to which MIDS refers If SpecimenType is used it would link directly to the name of the Specification (Minimal Information about a Digital Specimen). Potential to use SpecimenType at a very high level classification - this would help define "What is a specimen?" for the future.

Decision: To change name to SpecimenType To include in MIDS-1 onwards To be mapped broadly to BasisOfRecord and MaterialSampleType

[smrgeoinfo]

see discussion on refactoring this into object(specimen)type, material type, and sampled feature in the MaterialSample WG issues: https://github.com/tdwg/material-sample/issues/24

[emhaston]

Checking updated MaterialSample status. I wonder if the following mapping is now closer.

Maps exactly? to dwc:BasisOfRecord. Maps broadly to dwc:MaterialSampleType.

[emhaston]

I think that this should map to the new DwC term MaterialEntity now https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/426

[matdillen]

MaterialEntity core is not widely supported yet, as far as I can tell. I don't think there is any such data in GBIF yet (except for the UAT environment) and it's only present as an extension in GBIF's sandbox registry (for testing).

I expect it will start to roll out next year (?) with IPT version 3. I missed the webinar on IPT3 last week (which will support it and parts of the new GBIF data model), but they said that a recording would be available later.

Given this, I would propose to make the initial mapping for the classic Occurrence-based model? Otherwise, this would also have impact on object_category (which sets the core/extension to map to) and thus probably all GBIF data assessed right now would be MIDS-1.

[wouteraddink]

Hi Mathias, I think we should not take existing support too much into consideration when we aim to move forward. MaterialEntity core was accepted only a few months ago so it is logical that it is not widely implemented yet. But I would like to encourage people to start using it, so having GBIF occurrence-based data currently assessed as MIDS-1 may actually be a good thing and stimulate people to start using the MaterialEntity core? I am sure GBIF will support it once it gets widely used.

Kind regards, Wouter

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 11:36, Mathias Dillen @.***> wrote:

MaterialEntity core is not widely supported yet, as far as I can tell. I don't think there is any such data in GBIF yet (except for the UAT environment) and it's only present as an extension in GBIF's sandbox https://rs.gbif.org/sandbox/core/dwc_material_2023-04-29.xml registry (for testing).

I expect it will start to roll out next year (?) with IPT version 3. I missed the webinar on IPT3 last week (which will support it and parts of the new GBIF data model), but they said that a recording would be available later.

Given this, I would propose to make the initial mapping for the classic Occurrence-based model? Otherwise, this would also have impact on object_category (which sets the core/extension to map to) and thus probably all GBIF data assessed right now would be MIDS-1.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/mids/issues/59#issuecomment-1849776412, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADAUXXBJD6AD2DVT5VAH53YI3OZ3AVCNFSM5XH2CHFKU5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBUHE3TONRUGEZA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

-- Coördinator Research-data and E-infrastructure

International Biodiversity Infrastructures Natural Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Coordination team member, Distributed System of Scientific Collections ( DiSSCo http://dissco.eu/) Node Manager for DiSSCo, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF http://www.gbif.org/) Chair Biodiversity Data Integration IG, Research Data Alliance (RDA http://www.rd-alliance.org/)

ORCID: 0000-0002-3090-1761 | Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/wouteraddink/ http://linkedin.com/in/wouteraddink/

Twitter: @wouter99999 | Tel: +31 (0) 71 751 9364

@.*** - www.naturalis.nl - www.catalogueoflife.org - www.dissco.eu

[matdillen]

We're still in a development stage and want to see how our MIDS definitions and mappings work in practice. For that we need data to demo on, which will be tricky for some time with MaterialEntity (and biased as well, towards the early adopters of that new model).

I do agree that it makes sense to build a separate mapping for the Material Entity Core model, sooner rather than later. And at some point in the distant future we might even deprecate the Occurrence Core mappings.