parentMaterialSampleID

[thomasstjerne]

We have the field materialSampleID from material sample core on DWC occurrence, even though material sample core is not in production.

Data publishers from Australia, Norway and Sweden have requested parentMaterialSampleID to be added to dwc:Occurrence.

Proposing this for both DWC occurrence and material sample core

[thomasstjerne]

@tucotuco Do you have an opinion on this?

[dagendresen]

Maybe the first required step is a MaterialSample core?!
With the current Occurrence core there is also the RelatedResource extension available...

[timrobertson100]

This repository is the GBIF repository of schemas. For occurrence and event core definitions the policy is to follow DwC strictly and only deviate when necessary. recordedByID and identifiedByID are examples where GBIF needed to deviate as DwC decided not to adopt them. Now with the widespread use of those terms I suspect it likely they will be adopted by DwC.

I suggest the best way to proceed would be to propose parentMaterialSampleID in DwC and see the outcome of that discussion before considering a change here. See https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md for details on how to propose the term there.

[deepreef]

I agree with @timrobertson100 that the term parentMaterialSampleID should be formally proposed in DwC. I'm willing to do this, but I'll defer to @thomasstjerne if he would like to propose it. We have implemented this recursive hierarchical relationship within MaterialSample for a long time, and it is very useful.

[timrobertson100]

If you have the time to, please can you @deepreef?

DwC is preparing a batch of revisions for public commentary to go out at the end of April, so the sooner the better to make sure it makes the cut.

[deepreef]

If you have the time to, please can you @deepreef?

OK, if no one else proposes it by tomorrow, I will do so.

I may also propose materialSampleType at the same time (see here).

[tucotuco]

@tucotuco Do you have an opinion on this?

Sorry that I missed this request for feedback. When it comes to Darwin Core proposals, I try to be a good magistrate and listen to the evidence and provide guidance. I fail often. In any case, my DwC convenor self says to propose it using the the new term template as completely, concisely, and clearly laid out as possible, especially if it is to be fast-tracked. The first challenge will be to demonstrate the evidence of demand. It looks like you have evidence from data publishers. It would make a better case to add the evidence that independent parties need to share these data (have consumers).

[deepreef]

@tucotuco :

propose it using the the new term template as completely, concisely, and clearly laid out as possible, especially if it is to be fast-tracked.

Prompted by @timrobertson100 , I have started drafting this exactly as you describe, including the "concisely...as possible" part [waits for skeptical laughter to subside]. I mention at least two independent parties that have a need to share this information. Unless someone speaks up wanting to to do this, I will create an issue in the DwC space for this (as well as the proposed new term materialSampleType, and some proposals to move other terms from the Occurrence class to the MaterialSample class.)