cd
cd copied to clipboard
tdwg
Class:ObjectGroup
| Parent | |
| Label | Object Group |
| Definition | An intentionally grouped set of objects with one or more common characteristics. |
| Usage | |
| Required | Yes |
| Repeatable | Yes |
| Relationships | Range: RecordLevel | Class-level properties: Reference, Identifier, CollectionStatusHistory, ResourceRelationship, GeographicOrigin, GeologicalContext, ChronometricAge, Taxon, StorageLocation, Event, ObjectClassification, OrganisationalUnit, MeasurementOrFact, PersonRole |
| Potential standards/vocabularies/ontologies to adopt | Potential alignment with https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Collection |
| Notes |
Suggestion for additional property, from the standard definitions google sheet (and following discussion with FM)
ecoregion (property)
| Definition | High level biogeographic region of the collection |
| Dimension | yes |
| Existing property | |
| Existing class | |
| Existing property identifier | |
| Format | text |
| Required | no |
| Repeatable | no |
| Constraints | Controlled vocabulary |
| Examples | Deserts and xeric shrublands; Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests |
| Notes | Potential vocabulary: World Wildlife Fund ecoregions https://www.worldwildlife.org/biome-categories/terrestrial-ecoregions and https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/marine-ecoregions-of-the-world-a-bioregionalization-of-coastal-and-shelf-areas |
Could this be alligned with PROV-O e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Collection
Could this be alligned with PROV-O e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Collection
I could see some major benefits to this:
- It would be well aligned with using PROV to handle provenance relationships between collection descriptions (yet to be fully explored, but on the radar)
- Also a first step towards including attribution in the CD model in alignment with the RDA/TDWG attribution group recommendations (http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-054)
- The hadMember property might be a good solution for linking to any digital specimen records relating to members of the collection
What I'm not clear about is whether it handles the concept of a collection with partially or wholly undigitised members, and therefore can't all be listed using the hadMember property. prov:Collection appears to expect there to be 1+ members listed, whereas the subclass prov:EmptyCollection specifies that collection has no members, so would it allow a collection of unlistable members? Probably a question for someone with more PROV experience than me. Would be great if we can align.
These are properties describing the collection, not the collection description, I would rename the class therefore to Collection. The header properties are properties of the collection description, the digital object. Could be renamed to CollectionDescription or, to link with the RDA PID Kernel recommendation (https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/RDA%20Recommendation%20on%20PID%20Kernel%20Information_final.pdf), something like KernelInformationProfile
As per previous discussions, have renamed this to ObjectGroup. @wouteraddink this is for the same reason that you raised, but we thought that the term Collection might raise issues due to the historical interpretation of what a 'collection' means within natural science collections. But might be worth revisiting that at a later date.