View source for DWG Meetings 2020-21

<big>Meetings</big>

==1 March 2021==

=== Agenda ===

# MIDS - continue to review elements
# Any Other Business
# Next meeting

=== Notes ===

==== MIDS - continue to review elements: ====

Update from proposal to TDWG Task Group to use the term Title and more accurate Determination to be used at a later level.

Decision in TDWG Task Group is still pending and will be taken this week at the meeting on Thursday. Likely that the label ‘Name’ will be used with its definition being “A name given to the specimen” - being similar to the definitions of dc:title and schema.org:name.

Geography: 

Several options because several information elements in a hierarchical arrangement. High-level geography because collections are often organised this way e.g., by continent.

* Requirements from researcher perspective and from digitization (and curation) perspective - eg in relation to pipelines/workflows.
* If geographical structure is present in collections, we’ve seen that captured in digitization.
* Possibility of mis-alignments - region to region or country in a region
* Country assignments have a historical element - assigned as countries were at the time. So what should we put now?
* To fulfil MIDS (Level 2) are we saying presence or absence of any kind of more detailed info at a lower level than country might be acceptable?
* What constraints are there on how rigorous we should be within each MIDS level? Is it the same for different categories of info (name, geog) or can it be different?
* Importance of including marine and extra terrestrial regions

Next Meeting:



==1 February 2021==

=== Agenda ===

# MIDS - continue to review elements
# Any Other Business
# Next meeting

=== Notes ===

==== MIDS - continue to review elements: ====

Discussion focussed on MIDS Element Name, previously included as ScientificName

There is conflict between the use of Name as a determination of the scientific taxon name and a filing name for finding the specimen in the collection. This is particularly the case in Botany.

Need to keep in mind:

GitHub issues
* https://github.com/tdwg/mids/issues/12
* https://github.com/tdwg/mids/issues/6 for the rationale/discussion of changing from scientificName to Name.

Focus of Standards DwC & ABCD = Data Exchange; not necessarily data Management in the local DB
* ABCD : https://abcd.tdwg.org/xml/documentation/ABCD_3.0/ABCD_3_0_xsd.html#NameBacterial_AuthorTeamAndYear

Use cases for name
* ELViS
* GBIF & GeoCASE
* Curators finding specimens
* Researchers finding specimens

Storage name is two things:
* Step in process to an appropriate taxonomic det
* Finding aid for the physical specimen

Determinations can be seen in the narrow sense (as an act of research) and in the wider sense (where they can also be curatorial designations)

Relevance of other fields:
* materialType may also contain taxonomic name information
* commonName and other fields may also hold relevant data

Alignment with Dublin Core

Option to record StorageLocation?
* Changes frequently and not necessarily relevant to digitisation level

Options:

To use a decision tree framework:
* If scientificName is present use, if not:
* If commonName is present use, if not: etc

To use a Dublin Core concept of Title
* for MIDS-1 and move name to MIDS-2
* https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/terms/title/


Proposal to use Title - take forward to MIDS Task Group meeting on Thursday

==11 January 2021==

=== Agenda ===

# MIDS - continue to review elements
# Any Other Business
# Next meeting

=== Notes ===

==== MIDS - continue to review elements: ====

* Institution Code
* Collection Code
* Scientific Name
* Material Type (continued)

Summary of distinction between CETAF DWG and TDWG Task Group

(In case someone wants to sign up to the TDWG TG MIDS mailing list, you can do it here: http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-mids). 

CETAF Digitisation Working Group
* Composed of individuals within CETAF institutes
* Primarily focussed on the overarching aim of determining the level of digitisation within CETAF institutes
* Therefore focussing on the practical implementation of a MIDS standard for CETAF institutes

TDWG MIDS Task Group
* Composed of individuals from international institutes
* Primarily focussed on creating a robust international standard for digitised specimens
* Therefore focussing on the wider theoretical and practical aspects of MIDS for all users

CETAF DWG serves to provide practical implementation contribution (drivers, feedback) to TDWG TG MIDS.

CETAF DWG can create ‘issues’ in TDWG MIDS github repo: https://github.com/tdwg/mids/issues . (A template will be set up soon for each information element).

MaterialType - a lot to think about and discuss. Some information being pulled together.

* CreatedOn/Modified info elements - presently a proposal from TG to drop these from the minimum information set. A proposal to be decided. These are perceived presently as internal information elements that don’t need to be externally visible, but there are use cases (such as in CMS implementation) where these might be part of the minimum information internally. There are cases where it can be useful to know when a specimen was first digitised, and who has been involved (history of the digitisation).  

Who will use the MIDS elements? Is it the collection manager making the first catalog entries? 

Reminder that MIDS are the elements of data that are publicly shared. Does not preclude the publication or internal capture and management of more data.

* ScientificName - review its name and scope.
Note: At the TDWG TG last week, there was a suggestion that ‘name’ is what is used to store the object under rather than its identification. Eg FilingName, Namelabel, Objectname, etc.

* InstitutionCode

GBIF Registry becoming more set
See the example of Naturalis in terms of the Institution code that we are using the CETAF Registry of collections: http://collections.naturalsciences.be/cpb/nh-collections/countries/netherlands-the/nl-naturalis/view
For the Institution code, we are following as Falko says, the GriScicoll references

* CollectionCode

See the example of Naturalis in terms of the Institution code that we are using n the CETAF Registry of collections: http://collections.naturalsciences.be/cpb/nh-collections/countries/netherlands-the/nl-naturalis/view
For the Institution code the GriScicoll references


# Next meeting:

1 February 2021

==7 December 2021==

=== Agenda ===

# DWG Documentation structure
# MIDS - continue to review elements
# Any Other Business
# Next meeting

=== Notes ===

# DWG Documentation structure:
* Summary of meeting and notes held in this wiki.
* Additional notes from each meeting held in a Googledoc.
* Use of TDWG GitHub to hold MIDS documentation.

# MIDS - continue to review elements:

Focused on MIDS 1 elements
* CreatedOn
* ModifiedOn
* RecordCreator
* MIDSLevel
* PhysicalSpecimenId
* Institution
* MaterialType
* ScientificName
* Image present

Main discussion centered on MaterialType and the requirement of capturing CreatedOn, ModifiedOn and RecordCreator.

# Next meeting:

11 January 2021

== 2 November 2020 ==

=== Agenda ===

# Proposed actions for DWG (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_iT1yJWDka6sg-YznPCFSESECyPZLuejvC0nOvwavHo/edit#heading=h.u34pszzcluq1)
# MIDS
# Future meetings
# Any Other Business

==== Proposed actions for DWG ====

* Work with TDWG MIDS Task Group to finalise MIDS standard
* Create calculation process for all MIDS Levels for CETAF institutes
* Implementation of missing data recording based on ICEDIG paper recommendations
* Work with SYNTHESYS+ & DiSSCo Prepare on implementation of ELViS
* Link to TDWG Data Quality Group (especially regarding MIDS)
* Testing proposed standards/vocabularies in local CMSs

=== Notes ===

==== Proposed actions ====
General agreement in principle with actions in Agenda

==== MIDS ====
Introduced the concept of working on MIDS in the DWG and how this work would align with the work of the [https://www.tdwg.org/community/cd/mids/ TDWG MIDS Task Group].

The work carried out in the DWG would be more focussed on the implementation and practicality of the MIDS elements and this would feed into the TDWG MIDS Task Group work.
Started reviewing elements in MIDS Levels 0 & 1

Discussion particularly on elements that may not be required and if there were any elements that were missing at these levels.

==== Future meetings ====
General agreement with monthly meetings

Next meeting 7 December 2020