-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Breakdown MBON datasets by collection methods (eDNA, SCUBA, Passive Acoustic, Animal Tracking, etc..) #53
Comments
cc: @sformel-usgs @laurabrenskelle - Is there somewhere in TDWG this conversation should be had? |
This does seem like something TDWG should be involved in - standardizing a controlled vocabulary for collection methods. This would go beyond the existing |
it would be interesting to look at all of the existing |
df_filtered['basisOfRecord'].unique()
array(['HumanObservation', 'Occurrence', 'PreservedSpecimen', 'O',
'MachineObservation', 'Human Observation', 'MaterialSample',
'Humanobservation', '123.25', 'S', 'humanObservation', 'D',
'Human observation', 'LivingSpecimen', 'preservedSpecimen',
'humanobservation', 'Marine Species', 'NomenclaturalChecklist',
'machineobservation', 'materialSample', 'FossilSpecimen',
'preservedspecimen', '121.2', '120.9', '118.0667', '122.9167',
'121.4333', '121.1167', '122.1', '119.4667', '120.9167', '118.65',
'123.1833', '121.6833', '122.2', '119.45', '121.2333', '122.4333',
'122.0667', '121.7167', '123.45', '123.5833', '117.8833', '120.1',
'123', '120.5333', '119.25', '121.5', '120.6833', '119.1333',
'120.9667', 'DerivedFromLiterature', '121.6167', '121.95',
'122.85', '119.3833', '120.2333', '119.6667', '120.0667', '121.8',
'123.9167', '121.4833', '121.4', '122.5', '119.7333', '121.75',
'119.5833', '122', '119.9', '121.0667', '121.5333', '119.6',
'122.75', '123.4167', '121.9667', '119.75', '118.2', '122.65',
'121.45', '123.75', '117.8333', '122.15', '120.75', '124',
'122.4167', '121.0333', '122.6', '121', '120.9333', '120',
'120.25', '120.65', '122.9', '119.8', '123.5', '118.8333',
'120.8333', '123.2167', '122.7167', '121.25', '122.25', '120.6',
'119.85', '121.0833', '121.2167', '121.8333', '118.8167',
'122.5333', '120.5', '120.3833', '119.1', '122.35', '120.3167',
'119.5167', '123.4', '122.7667', '121.8833', '121.5833',
'122.9833', '122.3', '120.3333', '121.6333', '120.4667', '120.95',
'118.0333', '118.35', '121.9833', '118.95', '119.3', '121.35',
'121.2833', '118.2167', '119.5333', '123.2333', '120.7833',
'123.1', '120.05', '123.3333', '120.326', '121.3', '123.9',
'121.3667', '120.5167', '119.35'], dtype=object) Looking at |
What are all those numbers? Are they related to coordinates that are misplaced into basisOfRecord? |
Click me to expand responses
|
I don't know, that's weird though. I'll take a look this afternoon. I'm not surprised that |
Looking at the GOMECC data: The MBARI 18S dataset doesn't use |
@sformel-usgs Matt and I discussed this a bit this morning, and we landed on coming up with an interim solution, possibly using the IOOS MMI space to reference/define our terms, while we engage with this larger discussion with GBIF and TDWG that will hopefully result in a solution for the broader community. Then we could crosswalk our interim solution to the agreed upon standard when the time comes. We were a bit unsure why this effort seems to be led by GBIF as an internal improvement to their data structure rather than TDWG as part of DwC and the related data standards revamp. But that is something I can ask about in the tickets Cecilie referenced in her reply. |
Those floating numbers in A few others are legitimate uncontrolled values, and are from AfroOBIS, and then one is from OBIS-USA! I'll keep working on them. |
I think we would need to parse abstracts from the OBIS API response https://api.obis.org/v3/dataset?instituteid=23070
Unless there is another place we can gather collecting method information from the API?
Originally posted by @MathewBiddle in #45 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: