Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Biodiversity Informa...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Biodiversity Information Science and Standards
Article . 2020 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Pensoft
Conference object . 2020
Data sources: Pensoft
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

Institutional and Collaborative Work Perspectives on Specimen Databases

Authors: James Beach;

Institutional and Collaborative Work Perspectives on Specimen Databases

Abstract

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a grand experiment on the U.S. biological collections community, although it may not have anticipated the significance of the results. For over 30 years, the NSF made recurring investments through competitive grants in software engineering and technical support for biological collections databases. The Specify Project (now the Specify Collections Consortium), and its predecessor the MUSE Project, which was first funded in 1987, represent a lineage of sustained NSF investment in biological collections database systems. Specify is largely scoped for institutional curatorial, collections management, and data publishing functions, and it is generally deployed collection-by-collection within research institutions reflecting traditional administrative and disciplinary boundaries. MUSE and Specify grew out of a need U.S. collections institutions had for a common data model, a source of ongoing technical support, and desktop applications for the activities associated with collections management, e.g., tracking loans, accessions, gifts, and for printing labels and reports. In 2011, NSF announced its first "Thematic Collections Network" (TCN) awards from the "Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections" (ADBC) program. TCN projects are also focused on the computerization of collections data but from a different perspective, that is the digitization of specimens organized around a particular taxonomic group and/or research theme. The NSF TCN projects use Symbiota database software. Symbiota is designed for collaborative digitization workgroups across institution and collection boundaries. Symbiota fits the model advanced by the ADBC Program's TCN awards partially because it mirrors the way museum and herbarium scientists collaborate professionally—along taxonomic lines—in order to share common research interests and expertise, and to organize projects around their focal group of organisms. Thus after 10 years of successive rounds of TCN project funding, millions of specimen data records have been digitized for the first time in Symbiota databases, however, a considerable percentage do not exist in institutional collection management platforms. Today in the U.S., we have a duality of approaches toward specimen data computerization, collaborative workgroup databases at one pole and institutional collection database management systems at the other (while the Arctos Project sits somewhere in the middle). Tens of millions of species occurrence records are now online from NSF grant funding for the TCNs and for Specify databases over the years, but the dynamics and constraints of the duality that exists today between these two perspectives for digitizing and publishing collections data, initially may not have been so obvious. The duality reflects the partially-distinct and partially-overlapping goals of their stakeholders—institutional collection owners on the one hand, and "thematic" research users of specimen data on the other. Both methods of specimen data organization and the stakeholders associated with them are critical to the long-term engagement and sustainability not only of the data and their software platforms, but also of the biological collections themselves. This duality distinguishing institutional perspectives on collections data from thematic research perspectives has become apparent because of NSF's support of both types of computing, but their existence is due to more than grant funding patterns. They represent parallel computational perspectives that biodiversity data community architecture has yet to fully reconcile. It will be critical to bridge these two worlds of specimen data practice and recognize the strengths and essential nature of both paradigms. This presentation will discuss the characteristics of these two modes of specimen digitization and why they should both be fundamental components of digital specimen architecture planning. Although NSF funding revealed and accentuated the differences between these two ways of processing species occurrence data, the duality is productive and permanent.

Related Organizations
Keywords

architecture, software, interoperability, Specify, Symbiota, data integration

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 4
    download downloads 3
  • 4
    views
    3
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
4
3
Green
gold
Related to Research communities
Italian National Biodiversity Future Center