Difference between revisions of "Metadata for "local lists""
From TETTRIs
(Created page with "Categorising the taxonomic or taxonomy-related sets of data may serve to work out specific aspects of the potential relationships between the different categories. Furthermore...") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* Geographic scope: Local, State, National, Regional, Global | * Geographic scope: Local, State, National, Regional, Global | ||
* Taxonomic scope: Revision-scale (Genus, small family); Large group (Plants, Butterflies, Mammals, Birds, ...); All organisms | * Taxonomic scope: Revision-scale (Genus, small family); Large group (Plants, Butterflies, Mammals, Birds, ...); All organisms | ||
| − | * Taxonomic in-house expertise of the operators (related to the taxonomic scope) | + | * Taxonomic <u>in-house</u> expertise of the operators (related to the taxonomic scope) |
** Rather little: Usage of taxon names in factual datasets; Special purpose checklists (e.g. CITES etc.); General aggregators (CoL, EoL) | ** Rather little: Usage of taxon names in factual datasets; Special purpose checklists (e.g. CITES etc.); General aggregators (CoL, EoL) | ||
** Rather much: Taxonomic revision with checklist; Taxonomic Expert Network as aggregator; Community-driven aggregator (e.g. in Botany s.l.: WFO; Euro+Med, AlgaeBase; Mycobank/Index Fungorum) | ** Rather much: Taxonomic revision with checklist; Taxonomic Expert Network as aggregator; Community-driven aggregator (e.g. in Botany s.l.: WFO; Euro+Med, AlgaeBase; Mycobank/Index Fungorum) | ||
| − | * Technical in-house expertise of the operators | + | * Technical <u>in-house</u> expertise of the operators |
* Community scope (broadly anchored and used dataset/database ... individual contribution) | * Community scope (broadly anchored and used dataset/database ... individual contribution) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Metadata in ChecklistBank (see [https://www.gbif.org/data-quality-requirements-checklists|Data quality requirements: Checklist datasets)] do not cover these aspects in detail, the 3 first bullets can be covered by the Description text field. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:11, 20 October 2023
Categorising the taxonomic or taxonomy-related sets of data may serve to work out specific aspects of the potential relationships between the different categories. Furthermore, such categories help in the definition of use cases and audiences for the documented services.
Criteria could include
- Purpose, e.g. Aggregation of taxonomic knowledge; Support for species conservation; Used properties (medicinal, wood, ...), Governance and law (EU-Directives, CITES, ...)
- Geographic scope: Local, State, National, Regional, Global
- Taxonomic scope: Revision-scale (Genus, small family); Large group (Plants, Butterflies, Mammals, Birds, ...); All organisms
- Taxonomic in-house expertise of the operators (related to the taxonomic scope)
- Rather little: Usage of taxon names in factual datasets; Special purpose checklists (e.g. CITES etc.); General aggregators (CoL, EoL)
- Rather much: Taxonomic revision with checklist; Taxonomic Expert Network as aggregator; Community-driven aggregator (e.g. in Botany s.l.: WFO; Euro+Med, AlgaeBase; Mycobank/Index Fungorum)
- Technical in-house expertise of the operators
- Community scope (broadly anchored and used dataset/database ... individual contribution)
Metadata in ChecklistBank (see quality requirements: Checklist datasets) do not cover these aspects in detail, the 3 first bullets can be covered by the Description text field.
