15-Jan-2009 22:02 Age: 3 yrs

NCD Public Review

By: Lee Belbin

TDWG announces the Public Review of the proposed Natural Collections
Descriptions (NCD) standard.  NCD has been reviewed by the TDWG Executive
Committee and we now seek comment from the community.

The NCD abstract can be found here: The TDWG Standards Track
‘Journal’. At the bottom of the abstract page, there is a link to
download the Microsoft Word format file 640kb). This file contains both the
normative component of the standard and (for simplicity), the non-normative
(descriptive) component appended.

IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NCD STANDARD, PLEASE USE THE LINK IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH (DO NOT ADD COMMENTS TO THIS NEWS ITEM).

In accordance with the TDWG ‘Process’, a minimum of 30 days is required
for public comment on the proposed standard. Comments should therefore be
received by February 15, 2009. Comments must be added by clicking the ‘Add
Comment’ on the right hand side navigation bar. This link will only be
available after logging into the TDWG site as a TDWG registered user.
Comments can be anonymous by selecting ‘post this comment anonymously’
checkbox on the comment form. 

Please distribute this call for comment to anyone you think could or should
comment on NCD. Anyone can register (free) on the TDWG site.


Comments

Displaying results 1 to 2 out of 2

The GBIF Spain Team from GBIF Spain

pando(at)gbif.es

http://www.gbif.es

 
Friday, 30-01-09 10:58
Kingdoms, digitisation percentage, number of items, sensitive data, etc.


On the following existing elements:
1. KingdomType.- The picking list, taken from the TDWG ontology is in disagreement with the "Catalogue of Life" list, used by GBIF, EOL, and other relevant initiatives. This poses practical problems.
2. We agree with Hannu Saarenmaa's comment:
"Collection needs to have more detail of digitisation percentage, software used, digitisation methods such as imaging (percentage), quality assurance methods."
3. Geospatial Coordinates.- we agree with Margaret Cawsey's comment in full

Four elements that may be better treated as information elements:
1. Information Modified – To state attribute information that exists in the source database or collection that has been modified in some way when made public and causes loss or alteration to the data that are made available. From Arthur D. Chapman - August 2006. DRAFT: Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence DataReport
2. DataSensitiveComments - To indicate which parts of the data are sensitive (if any), reasons for sensitivity and conditions under which release is possible. From Arthur D. Chapman and Oliver Grafton – 2008. Guide to best practices for generalising sensitive species occurrence data
3. NumberOfItems.- Number of items included in the collection. The element "Extend" does not allow for simple counts; and this is much required for planning and managing
4. ItemType.- This might be needed to make meaningful "NumberOfItems". CollectionType do not suffice since the items counted can be individual specimens, or series or boxes or liquid containers with multiple specimens.

The GBIF Spain Team


Robert Huber from WDC-MARE

rhuber(at)wdc-mare.org

 
Monday, 02-02-09 21:47
1)Some elements seem to be too restricted to taxonomy, e.g. Common Name Coverage or Kingdom Coverage. But NCD aims to be a natural history collections standard and should have a much wider focus. Maybe these elements could be renamed to e.g. Phenomenon or Feature Coverage so e.g. minerals, rocks etc can also be described.

2)Expedition Name should be renamed to 'Project Name'

3) Formation Period should maybe renamed to Collection Period (date of collection not creation of object, FormationPeriod could probably be misunderstood as lithostratigraphic Formation?)

3) Living Time Period should be renamed to 'Creation Period' this would include creation time of artwork or publication dates etc..

4)Geospatial Coordinates should include 3d dimension: depth coverage

5) Specimen Preservation Method can this cover a complete collection anyway?

6) One element which is missing but imho extremely important: The Documentaton Standard used by the collection!


Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.
  Last Modified: 17 August 2011