-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
how to define species observation from non-free-ranging animals #5
Comments
Thanks @sarahcd - not on GBIF today, no. Will give it some thought though... |
Answer by @albenson-usgs:
|
@peterdesmet Your proposal seems quite reasonable. Those are the values I would expect for a zoo animal, for example. |
Seems like the best option to me too. |
@timrobertson100 @tucotuco Just to be clear, the proposal to use The definition for
Imo, using
|
I see better now where you are going with this. I would keep basisOfRecord completely independent of the establishmentMeans. Observations should be used for records that have no physical evidence - so everything on your list would be Observations for basisOfRecord, unless a sample was taken, or unless it was the "end of the line" (specimen collected). The rest sounds like the vocabularies being discussed are insufficient. I think I would focus energy there to see if you can define values that differentiate the cases that are important. |
Great! That's how I see it too: these are all observations, not specimens. And given the correct controlled vocabulary value (e.g. |
The intent of establishmentMeans was, "Why was the thing there?", so that, to me, is the right term. The bothersome part of the definition is "established". Is an individual involved in a homing experiment "established"? If we can get beyond that, I think this is the right term. I think we can get beyond that with a modified definition for establishmentMeans, examples, and a solid vocabulary that addressed the use cases you are facing. |
@tucotuco: 👌 @timrobertson/@pieterprovoost, given a new term in the controlled vocab, would GBIF/OBIS be fine in processing this field to detect unnaturally occurring occurrences? |
Tracking data often represent deployments from homing and navigation experiments that should not be assumed to be movements of free-ranging animals or used to interpret species distributions. Is there a clear way to identify this in DwC or on GBIF?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: