Download Presentation - EU%20BON%20LifeWatch%20ENM%202016

Sample-based data publication; reflections on
semantics and logic 1(1)
Hanna - GBIF Finland
Lepidoptera collection
of Hannu Saarenmaa
Public
No (but DwC is close)
Yes (published from
GBIF Finland IPT)
10-20 moth monitoring
schemes
The relation between events, occurrence data and sample-based data:
• Events and occurrences may be published with separate datasets.
However, forming the base of an event – that may or may not have a
mixed basis of records that each require individual identifiers - basically all
records are observations that can have documentation or “evidence” in
the form of specimens, illustrations, multimedia files, sequences or other
measurements.
• Occurrences may be the discovery system, hence GUIDs for occurrences
that are linked to events are necessary but we also need a pathway “back”
to the records metadata/the event – thus in addition to occurrences
identifiers we need categories in controlled vocabularies for events to
make them searchable.
• Original/first observation tracking data, bird ringing or other continuous
monitoring of possibly the same individuals should have identifier that
stays with individuals “forever” – but is that individual then the event?
Sample-based data publication; reflections on
presence-absence data 1(1)
Hanna - GBIF Finland
Lepidoptera collection
of Hannu Saarenmaa
Public
No (but DwC is close)
Yes (published from
GBIF Finland IPT)
10-20 moth monitoring
schemes
Presence –absence data:
• Absence data should be published with a check-list for the relevant
location and time, which however unfortunately must leave out those
species that would have presumably been observed, but are not part of
the “normal” species composition.
• For taxonomic and biogeographical/ecological reasons such checklists will
have to be dated or provided solely alongside the sampling event in
question.
• Species that turn up far outside of their home range (or natural habitat),
and which do not coincide with local check-lists (e.g. invasives) are
challenging; never possible to contain in a monitoring scheme with checklist unless the latter is supplemented by “known” expected species.
Sample-based data publication; reflections on
”new” data types 1(2)
Hanna - GBIF Finland
Lepidoptera collection
of Hannu Saarenmaa
Public
No (but DwC is close)
Yes (published from
GBIF Finland IPT)
10-20 moth monitoring
schemes
“New” data types require special attention:
• Tracking data, bird ringing and continuous monitoring (of possibly the
same individuals) will require identifiers that stay with individuals since
the first /original observation, but is that individual then an event, an
observation or a specimen?
• Such events/records should, when possible, be followed by repeated
monitoring of conditions and effects
• Live collections represent a kind of “monitoring” data.
• Controlled vocabulary needed for sampling methods, which should be
searchable in the metadata or event to be able to explain the fitness-foruse for the event/dataset.
• For sampling methods that measure activity rather than quantity, absence
is a relative term and needs to be expressed with probability.
Sample-based data publication; reflections on
”new” data types 2(2)
Hanna - GBIF Finland
Lepidoptera collection
of Hannu Saarenmaa
Public
No (but DwC is close)
Yes (published from
GBIF Finland IPT)
10-20 moth monitoring
schemes
“New” data types require special attention:
• Not all datatypes need to be in DwC, but links must be established to (all
kinds of) relevant databases that relate to occurrence/check-list (including
barcodes). Many relevant “things” may be expressed by different
standards but need not be contained in DwC.
• Special attention should be paid to social media big data extracts. How?
• Verbatim description is still needed but to be made searchable event
metadata would need controlled vocabularies (e.g. sampling protocols of
other “categories”)
EU BON update
•
•
EU BON project/consortium (http://eubon.eu/) ”Building the European Biodiversity
Observation Network” December 2012 - May 2017
Functions:
–
•
Contents/Who´s there? 31 partners from 18 countries (http://eubon.eu/show/partners_2735/) plus
30 associated members from 19 countries (http://eubon.eu/showpage.php?storyid=10373)
–
–
–
•
“To reassure integration between social networks of science and policy, and technological networks
of interoperating IT infrastructures. This will enable a stable new open-access platform for sharing
biodiversity data and tools building on existing components, in particular GBIF and LifeWatch
infrastructures, and national biodiversity data centres.”
Main outcomes (http://eubon.eu/show/outcomes_2739/)
Work Packages (http://eubon.eu/show/project_10230)
Deliverables (http://eubon.eu/documents/1/)
EU BON to GEO BON to GEOSS:
–
–
Advancing technological/informatics infrastructures for GEO BON, by moving existing biodiversity
networks towards standards-based, service-oriented approaches and cloud computing, enabling full
interoperability through the GEOSS Common Infrastructure;
Improving the range and quality of the methods and tools for assessment, analysis, and visualization
of biodiversity and ecosystem information, particularly focusing on predictive modelling,
identification of drivers of change, and biodiversity indicators, and to support priority setting.
LifeWatch update
•
•
LifeWatch consortium (http://lifewatch.eu/)
Functions:
– Secretariat (Sevilla, Spain)
– Service Centre (Lecce, Italy)
•
•
Contents/Who´s there? (http://lifewatch.eu/Countries)
LifeWatch an ERIC (European Research Infrastructure Consortium http://lifewatch.eu/News/850/scientific-and-technical-description-of-lifewatch-eric-document)/
(https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=eric)?
•
LifeWatch on the ESFRI (European Strategy Forum for Research
Infrastructures) 2016 Roadmap? (http://lifewatch.eu/Events/861/lifewatch-progress-meeting-insantander)
•
LifeWatch Nordic in the making (Nordforsk/Nordic e-Infrastructure Collaboration https://neic.nordforsk.org/)
–
–
–
–
Proposed Nordic Secretariat group
Proposed Nordic Virtual Support Centre
Proposed Collaboration for sharing data and tools through portals.
Proposed Nordic-Baltic Linked Open Data access-points and ontology library