Digital Specimen update to 0.2.0 #92
Conversation
data-model/digitalobjects/0.2.0/digital-specimens/schema/digital-specimen.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "???:recordedByAgent": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
recordedByAgent is not in dwc so this needs to be ods term. how is this diff than recordedBy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The difference is that recordedBy is a string object and this is an agent object. Still not completely sure where to put agents without overcomplicating things. We later added the generic agents array attribute so I will remove this specific one.
| "ILL: Union Co. Wolf Lake by Powder Plant Bridge. 1 March 1975 Coll. S. Ketzler, S. Herbert\n\nMonotoma longicollis 4 ♂ Det TC McElrath 2018\n\nINHS Insect Collection 456782" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "materialEntity": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is not in dwc name space yet? add BFO? https://ontobee.org/ontology/BFO?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000040
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checked the classes in dwc and added the ones I could find. Not sure if it works that way through, as until now these were used as basisOfRecord
| "ods:physicalSpecimenIdType", | ||
| "ods:sourceSystem", | ||
| "dcterms:license", | ||
| "???:institutionId" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be dwc:institutionID
https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_institutionID
| ], | ||
| "$comment": "Is this necessary for specimens" | ||
| }, | ||
| "???:protocolDescription": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably from here: https://eco.tdwg.org/terms/#methodology-description
data-model/digitalobjects/0.2.0/digital-specimens/schema/identifications.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
data-model/digitalobjects/0.2.0/digital-specimens/schema/identifications.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| "description": "Unclear yet", | ||
| "$comment": "Unknown what this field should be" | ||
| }, | ||
| "???:typeDesignatedBy": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it was proposed here but no other references: dshorthouse/agents_actions#2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to rework agents to a generic object, then this field will probably become obsolete
| "After the recent rains the river is nearly at flood stage" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "???:collectorName": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is usually captured by recordedBy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't say recorder and collector are necessarily the same. However, just as with typeDesignatedBy, we need to rework the agents to a generic object which includes the relationship to the object.
| "examples": [ | ||
| "location information not given for endangered species" | ||
| ], | ||
| "$comment": "Feels like this field should be true or false and another field should contain the explanation" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, but the example shows as text desc. so let's use it with text for now.
| "$ref": "https://schemas.dissco.tech/schemas/digitalobjects/0.2.0/digital-specimens/occurrences.json" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "???:EntityRelationship": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we mark this gbif:EntityRelationship to indicate that they are from the new data model?
| "examples": [ | ||
| "individuals" | ||
| ], | ||
| "$comment": "Could this become a enum?" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need to bring this up to dwc working group. I also see this in the desc "A dwc:organismQuantityType must have a corresponding dwc:organismQuantity. This term has an equivalent in the dwciri: namespace that allows only an IRI as a value, whereas this term allows for any string literal value."
PR with a bunch of new fields.
Most are verbatim fields, which we now added to the datamodel.
We also added a couple of ID fields which weren't previously included.
We try to make this a new minor version upgrade of the 0 version, let's see how that works out.