Epipactis/Celastrus demonstration project; georeferencing

[Dal...@aol.com]

Hi,

 

It seems a bit premature for people to start entering data before the fields have been settled upon.

 

I have the following comments on the fields for the demonstration project, having looked at the example posted on the neahc group:

 

1. Some are not necessary for the taxa we have chosen (all of the "infra" fields, acronym, and hybrid). We may wish to assign an acronym to each species (for example, the one used by plants. usda.gov) as a group.

2. When reporting coordinates, the geodetic datum must always be reported.

3. When georeferencing a locality, the degree of accuracy should be reported. At VT we are using what we are calling a "radius of uncertainty"--the radius in meters of a circle that describes the maximum area within which the specimen could have been collected, given what the label states about the locality, with the collection point coordinates as the centroid.

4. In order for the data to fit easily into Specify eventually, the collectors should be listed in separate fields and given a priority order. Collector 1 is the one who numbered the specimen or who is listed first on the label.

5. There needs to be a field that identifies the repository. There needs to be a field that is a unique identifier for each specimen. These two can be combined. For example, at VT we use a bar code that is also the accession number that starts with "UVMVT" and then is followed by six digits (e.g., "UVMVT000457"). This both identifies the specimen as being from VT but also the combination provides a unique identifier for the specimen.

6. I think you will want to have one field, at a minimum, for who determined the specimen. At a maximum you will want data on each determination or annotation (i.e., a separate record for each label on the specimen.)

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Cheers, Dorothy

 

Dorothy J. Allard, Ph.D.
Analytical Resources LLC
1331 Waterville Mountain Road
Bakersfield, VT 05441

---

Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.

[patrick...@yale.edu]

Dorthy,

Thanks for the very helpful and informed comments. We as a group
definitely need to have a full discussion about what fields we want.
This raises another point: how developed do we want this demonstration
project to be? We have not really fully discussed (at least at the
last meeting) what the point of the demonstration project is. It seems
from the example data set, which is a legacy of a previous effort from
a prior meeting, that the aim was for a simple, scaled down version of
what was possible. Can someone who was around during the 2004 meeting
provide the rational for what was decided on then.

It does make sense to me to try to get this demonstration project as
close to what we are aiming for as possible - otherwise what is the
point? It seems to me that we should, as you suggested, pause and
decide on what fields we really want (and on what we want this
demonstration project to be). Would it be helpful to begin looking at
the latest Darwin Core schema and begin hashing this out...? Any
other thoughts?

Patrick

> **************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
> 2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)