How "taxonomically homogenous" for dwc class = Organism?

[debpaul]

Greetings. Enter, a mapping conundrum.

Given: I note that the definition for DwC Organism Class = A particular organism or defined group of organisms considered to be taxonomically homogeneous.

Question: For a material sample event where all objects collected / observed = freshwater mussels -- is that taxonomically homogenous enough?

Why? In order to decide if I might use dwc:associatedOrganisms with a relationship from an ontology that would let me express found with or collected with for all the taxa involved (assuming such a term exists in RO or similar). And then I might include a note in dwc:organismRemarks to state collected at same site, same event.

OR

Do I stick with dwc class = Occurrence and the corresponding field: dwc:associatedTaxa

Thanks for insights.

[albenson-usgs]

Why not use eventID to associate the occurrences together?

[debpaul]

Okay, but what about listing the taxa and trying to say was was found with what using associatedOrganisms or associatedTaxa? I am planning to recommend using eventID and parentEventID since in this case people do re-visit the same site multiple times.

Can associatedOrganisms be used in this case (hence wanting to know more about "taxonomically homogeneous").

[andersfi]

We make frequent use of combination of eventID to document ecological datasets where the sampling process and which organisms have been collected together are crucial information - e.g. our Limnic freshwater invertebrate collection . Also lot of use of parentEventID to document hierarchical sampling designs it kind of works. Tetraonid line transect surveys as example, but at least GBIF does not recognize events without occurrences so that you have to go to the raw DwC-A to see the structure.

As for associatedOrganism, my interpretation of the examples given was more that this was of the type "sibling of", "mother of" etc. which perhaps could better document using Resource Relationships?

[tucotuco]

I would be good to understand your use case better - what is actually happening during the collecting event. I think I understand the part of wanting to capture explicitly the associations of other taxa collected simultaneously, for which associated taxa does sound right. The part that is confusing is the taxonomic homogeneity question. Can you not capture the distinct taxa in separate Occurrence rows for some reason?

…

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:33 AM Anders G. Finstad ***@***.***> wrote: We make frequent use of combination of eventID to document ecological datasets where the sampling process and which organisms have been collected together are crucial information - e.g. our Limnic freshwater invertebrate collection <https://www.gbif.org/dataset/33591b80-0e31-480c-82ce-2f57211b10e6> . Also lot of use of parentEventID to document hierarchical sampling designs it kind of works. Tetraonid line transect surveys <https://www.gbif.org/dataset/6a948a1c-7e23-4d99-b1c1-ec578d0d3159> as example, but at least GBIF does not recognize events without occurrences so that you have to go to the raw DwC-A to see the structure. As for associatedOrganism, my interpretation of the examples given was more that this was of the type "sibling of", "mother of" etc. which perhaps could better document using Resource Relationships? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#171 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ7257VYYX57D6SNQLC7LTEL435ANCNFSM4ZNQZ7NQ> .

[albenson-usgs]

Is the discussion here relevant for the problem you're trying to solve? From my perspective it seems like associatedOrganisms is intended for animals that form behavioral groups and associatedOccurrences is intended for a more general use case of occurrences linked together in some way. It's a bit confusing because ecological datasets are de facto associated occurrences but I never use that term so it does seem like some clarity on use cases for when to use that term would be helpful. Also from my reading of the two terms (which have the exact same definitions except for the word "occurrence"/"organism") that you can include the relationship in associatedOccurrences the same as you would for associatedOrganisms.

[tucotuco]

Related to this discussion, I have added an issue (tdwg/dwc#324) about the inconsistency of the dwc:associatedOccurrences term.