The TDWG Collection Description Interest Group has collected use cases for natural history collection information from several major stakeholders. In addition, major European projects, including ICEDIG, are preparing for the development of the DiSSCo infrastructure by documenting use cases for collections.
Collections staff and taxonomists collaborate as a truly global community. Valuable specimens are distributed between institutions in all parts of the world. Researchers visit these collections or borrow specimens as part of their work. Index Herbariorum (IH) is the directory of information on the world’s herbaria (addresses, contacts, specialties, size, etc.). It is a well-managed resource and highly regarded as a tool by the botanical community. No full equivalent exists globally for other natural history collections, although national/regional infrastructures such as the ALA collections pages, the iDigBio US Collections List, and the CETAF profiles serve similar roles. GBIF has recently integrated the Global Registry of Scientific Collections (GRSciColl) into its registry as a framework that can be extended with richer information curated by collections communities.
Q1. Would the collections community benefit from a comprehensive directory of all natural history collections? Who would make use of such a directory? (The focus here is on the catalogue as a directory of known institutions and information required to contact them.)
Taxonomic studies and other research projects normally depend on researchers (or their contacts) knowing which institutions hold relevant specimens or other materials. This is complicated by the history of expeditions and collecting activities. Specimens have been scattered across all continents. Only a small proportion of these specimens have been databased in forms that can be accessed through GBIF or other portals. A catalogue providing at least summary information on taxonomic and geographic scope for each collection could assist researchers in locating relevant materials.
Q2. Would summary information on every collection’s materials be a useful tool? Who would use this information? What is the minimum level of information (and what is ideal) to support these users?
The information needed to build the catalogue of collections closely matches the metadata required to publish a specimen dataset to GBIF and other portals. A record that describes a collection could be treated as a minimal first step, perhaps leading through processes such as Join The Dots and onwards to comprehensive digitisation. A comprehensive catalogue of such records could guide efforts to prioritise further digitisation, by highlighting collections with holdings of particular relevance or by assisting the development of collaborative digitisation networks like the ADBC Thematic Collection Networks.
Q3. Can publishing a collection record to a catalogue assist collections in moving towards full digitisation? What incentives or support do collections need to make this a worthwhile step?
Estimates of the number of specimens held by collections run into billions, but no definitive number exists. A catalogue could help to narrow these estimates and to assess the economic value of these irreplaceable holdings. This information may help to justify the scale of effort and funding needed to digitise collections and make their data accessible for universal, reliable and persistent use.
Q4. Would more accurate estimates of the scale and value of collections be useful? How might these be used and by whom?
Accurate information on any collection can be used as a reference or as linked data associated with specimen records and other data objects. Users of specimen records need contextual information about the collection that holds the specimen, for example to communicate with collection managers about individual specimens, to offer corrections to specimen data, or simply to determine whether the collection is likely to hold quantities of similar specimens. It may be inefficient to embed all of this information within the specimen record. Holding a single authoritative copy assists with keeping the collection information current. The collection record may also contain information on taxonomic or geographic scope or other aspects that can resolve potential ambiguities within a specimen record. Links to current collection records will also enhance taxonomic publications referencing their materials. This is particularly important because catalogue numbers and other specimen identifiers used in publications may not link to digitised information on the specimens. Linking to the collection simplifies future access and may enable digital links to be inferred in future.
Q5. How could a comprehensive collections catalogue contribute to improvements to other categories of biodiversity data? What requirements would these improvements place on the catalogue?
Although no complete catalogue of collections exists, the need for such information leads to such data repeatedly being published in different formats for different portals, project documentation, metadata for other data, etc. This duplication results in confusion as outdated information remains on the web. Mechanisms that always link to a single continuously updated version (and a version history) would address these issues.
Q6. Can we identify savings in time and costs that would arise from a well-managed shared catalogue of collections?
A comprehensive directory could serve as a foundation for new tools that enhance taxonomic efforts and cooperation between all collection holders. One example might be the development of distributed loans systems or on-demand digitisation, as planned for the DiSSCo European Loans and Visits System (ELViS). A catalogue could also serve as a showcase for institutions to highlight their holdings and unique features, as in the visual concept shared by GBIF for collection pages. GBIF tracking and reporting on the use of biodiversity data in research publications could feed into new services that provide standard metrics and help collections to measure and report their impact.
Q7. What other services could be developed on the foundations of a collection catalogue? Would these attract investment to fund the development and support the maintenance of the catalogue?
Research value is primarily measured in terms of visibility and impacts from published literature. Natural history collections are poorly recognised by such measures and their importance as foundational research tools is almost hidden. Users of collections are regularly urged to cite specimens examined and reference the collection. However, citation is often lacking, incomplete or ambiguous. Research infrastructures such as OpenAIRE in Europe increasingly map not only linkages between researchers and publications but also datasets, projects, content providers and organisations. A catalogue could help to standardise citation of collections, making their impact visible through such knowledge graphs. Journals and editorial boards could be encouraged to require standard collection identifiers wherever collections are referenced.
Q8. How might a comprehensive catalogue promote citation and attribution for collections? What can be done to encourage wide standardised use of identifiers from the catalogue?
Although this consultation aims to encourage the development of standardised information for all collections globally, each country or region may have needs or uses for this same information to in local applications and services. It is important to identify a range of these needs and to make sure they are addressed as part of a collaborative solution. An inclusive approach will bring incentives to work together to make information on each catalogue as complete, current and accurate as possible. Requirements are relatively well understood from Europe (e.g. DiSSCo) and the United States (e.g. iDigBio), but other regions may have subtly or significantly different needs.
Q9. What national and regional needs or possible uses should be considered? Do national portals or specialist networks require information not currently addressed by data standards for collection metadata? Are there significant regional research infrastructures or public websites that include (or should include) information on local collections? Are there regionally important uses that are not addressed elsewhere in this document?