Dear all,

Apologies for the late arrival in the discussion. It was our Christmas Party yesterday!

I agree with Pat that there is some difficulty in separating the storage and the type of material. I’m presenting here the categories that we developed and used at the NHM for a recent collections assessment exercise. I notice also that the final list does not include Oversize specimens as some of our slab material cannot be described as Hand Specimen.

Specimen type ES	Preservation method ES
Macrofossil	Hand specimen
Rock/mineral	Matrix free specimens
Gemstone	Bottles/jars/vials
Meteorite	SEM stubs
Microfossil	Casts
	Polished blocks
	Crushed/sieved residue
	Images
	Films/negatives
	Sediment
	Spirit/wet
	Slides
	Filters

I should point out also that we had to develop this categorisation list as there was an established one for LS collections that had apparently been widely agreed as a standard (I’m currently trying to find the source for this). Laura, is this a similar situation for this request you are putting? Ie is there already a life sciences one that we are trying to fit to? I ask because the issues raised below regarding Taxonomy and whether these categories should be further split is reliant on this. If the LS categories are split then we should attempt to split ours.

All the best,

Giles

From: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com [mailto:cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Patricia Mergen
Sent: 17 December 2019 04:19
To: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com
Subject: Re: AW: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Dear all

Reading to the comments for earthsciences but also the parallel discussions on other collections, I see that it is quite difficult to separate classifications of the objects and their specific storage media or form in many cases. 

Even if this creates redundancy or overlap, I think for the dash board to work it is important to try to have good functional terms and also the community of users be they experts from the domain or not find their way. If you take a soil sample earth since may look at the minerals, micro fossils in it, while others into recent worms, bacteria, microorganisms, pollen ... while the storage maybe the same. 

For metrics and statistics reason we may need to have synonyms or overarching term for similar storage manners and different granularity in the terms. This is true for other categories as well 

Can the Dashboard system handle hierarchies of terms? One to one, one to many and many to many relationships between terms ?

Will we keep the tool currently used or can we have all flexibility in handling the terms (as controlled vocabularies for collections descriptors)? 

In principle we produce here a standard with concepts and for each a list of discipline related controlled vocabularies. 

The it tools will then need to be compatible with the specifications defined.  

At least that how it worked for currently used tdwg standards where the IT tools were developed at the same time as the standard to be best compatible. 

Here with the ongoing development of these terms and Elvis/Dashboard we have the same opportunity for success.

All the best

Pat

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 22:36 Jiří Kvaček, <jiri_kvacek@nm.cz> wrote:

Hi Laura, Andreas, Bjorn and others

I think hand specimen is more general in terms of what is preserved in a collecion. 

If the fossil is isolated then it remains a fossil, however if the fossil is surrounded by original sediment than it is a hand specimen or slab for me.

What I miss there is a description of a mesofossil and its container typically termed in our language as a cell (Franke Cell- paper container of size of a preparation glass with a circular space covered by a lid - covering glass). I do not know if there is something acceptable in English.

Best wishes

Jiri

----- Původní zpráva -----

---

Odesilatel: Kroh Andreas (andreas.kroh@NHM-WIEN.AC.AT)
Datum: 16.12.2019 16:46
Příjemce: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com
Předmět: AW: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Hi Laura,

I do not know what native speaking geologists use for German "Handstück" - I cannot remember having seen the term "hand specimen" in usage anywhere, but I may be wrong.

Typically these were simply called rock samples in the US/UK collections I visited.

Best wishes

Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andreas Kroh
Head of the NHM Vienna Publishing House

Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Serie A, Editor-in-Chief

Zootaxa, Subject Editor for Echinodermata

Natural History Museum Vienna

Geological-Paleontological Dept.

Burgring 7 - 1010 Vienna - Austria - EU
Tel: 0043-1-52177-576
Fax: 0043-1-52177-459

www.nhm-wien.ac.at/kroh.html

World Register of Marine Species

Steering Committee Member & Taxonomic Editor for Echinoidea

http://www.marinespecies.org/echinoidea/

OeTyp - Online-Database of palaeontological type specimens in Austrian collections

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/oetyp/palhome.htm

Von: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com> Im Auftrag von laura.tilley@cetaf.org
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 16:25
An: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com
Betreff: RE: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Hello Andreas,

Thank you for your reply! Firstly with regards to the Palaeontology Taxonomic classification, I did not add it to the google sheet because no issues have been raised about it - but I have just added it now so you can see how palaeontology is defined. Okay, Celia also made the comment that Steffen has an important point about separating Microfossils and Macrofossils - so I will define these as categories in storage. You have some good points also - I need to just think how I can combine them in to useful categories. I will not use hand specimen. I wonder if hand specimen is the correct term to use in Geology? - from a curatorial point of view.  

Best wishes

Laura

Dr. Laura Tilley

Project Assistant

CETAF, AISBL

+32 (0) 2 627 42 50

laura.tilley@cetaf.org

CONSORTIUM OF EUROPEAN TAXONOMIC FACILITIES

c/o Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences

rue Vautier, 29 1000, Brussels. Belgium

www.cetaf.org

Exploring and documenting diversity in nature

Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail message it is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any  unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this message from your computer.

Be green, read on screen!

From: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com> On Behalf Of Kroh Andreas
Sent: 16 December 2019 16:02
To: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com
Subject: AW: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Hi Laura,

I do not see any palaeontology under the heading "Taxonomic Type"

Based on past experience I know that most geologists and mineralogists would object to the usage of the word taxonomy for a classification involving their objects.

Under "Storage classification"

I assume "Handspecimens" is a direct translation for German "Handstück" - this is not in common usage. I would strongly support the term "Macrofossil" instead

I also second Steffen's comment reg. Microfossils

Thin sections could be a separate category - since these can be both micro- or macrofossil in origin

Like Steffen I never saw fossil liquids, but what does exist are macrofossils stored in liquid (alcohol or glycerine) - I would simply have classified these as "Macrofossils", but if you want to put emphasis on storage concerns they could be keyed out as separate category

Very commonly very large objects are stored in separate storage areas in collections - so again, if the focus is storage these could form a separate category ("Oversized specimens" or similar)

Often, fossil bearing sieving residues are stored alongside microfossil collections - often in different cabinets or even rooms - again possibly a different category.

Many collections separate any vertebrate (or only mammalian) remains from the other fossils and do classify them in "normal sized" bones and micro mammals (or micro vertebrates). I know this is now a mixture of taxonomy and size, but I just want to bring it to your attention as it is common.

All the best

Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andreas Kroh
Head of the NHM Vienna Publishing House

Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Serie A, Editor-in-Chief

Zootaxa, Subject Editor for Echinodermata

Natural History Museum Vienna

Geological-Paleontological Dept.

Burgring 7 - 1010 Vienna - Austria - EU
Tel: 0043-1-52177-576
Fax: 0043-1-52177-459

www.nhm-wien.ac.at/kroh.html

World Register of Marine Species

Steering Committee Member & Taxonomic Editor for Echinoidea

http://www.marinespecies.org/echinoidea/

OeTyp - Online-Database of palaeontological type specimens in Austrian collections

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/oetyp/palhome.htm

Von: cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com> Im Auftrag von laura.tilley@cetaf.org
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 12:40
An: ESG <cetaf_earthsc@cetaf.simplelists.com>
Betreff: [CETAF_ESG] Advice needed on earth science collection descriptions

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to kindly ask for your advice on defining the standardised terminology "classification schemes" developed in SYNTHESYS+ for geological, palaeontological collections/objects, and also Extraterrestrial if possible. I realise the current terminology for taxonomic type and storage need urgent revision because they are not really useful. I have made revisions and ask if you agree with my suggestions or to give further input. I am aware that most of you are curators - so with regards to storage: Are my suggestions meaningful? Have I covered the main categories in which geological, palaeontological and Extraterrestrial objects are contained? Please note that it is important not to go into much detailed, the categories should be useful for high-level reporting.

Google sheets with my new suggestions (highlighted in green) of categorisation: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19hBCnsLkMILmfaFMy_YwcSiUlOVB99z7CDFnkwrrxe8/edit#gid=0

In red are the original terms for comparison.

I would please like your feedback before the 20^th December

General Terminology to be aware of:  Taxonomic type: This refers to collection type e.g. for Palaeontology: invertebrates, vertebrates,  botany & mycology. For Geology: minerology, petrology etc.

Storage classification: refers to  what form collection objects are stored. This classification aims to be useful for information on building planning, help decision for investment of storage facilities etc.

Background

These classification schemes are being developed in  SYNTHESYS+ they will be at the core of describing collections within DiSSCo, and will allow the discoverability, accessibility, mobilisation of collection data held in institutes.  More specifically I am coordinating the task involved in developing a collection digitisation dashboard in which the classification schemes are being developed. The dashboard will provide high level information on collections related to Collection Taxonomic types, Storage, geographic region etc. the goal is to facilitate the discoverability of collections as well as decision making on institutional, governmental and research levels - what facilities are needed, building planning, prioritisation of digitisation, research collaboration etc.

It is important since we are the community that will be using these terms, and the goal is to promote the use of these terms beyond DiSSCo.

I hope my request make sense if not please feel free to contact me.

Thank you in advance for your help

Best wishes

Laura   

Dr. Laura Tilley

Project Assistant

CETAF, AISBL

+32 (0) 2 627 42 50

laura.tilley@cetaf.org

CONSORTIUM OF EUROPEAN TAXONOMIC FACILITIES

c/o Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences

rue Vautier, 29 1000, Brussels. Belgium

www.cetaf.org

Exploring and documenting diversity in nature

Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail message it is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any  unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this message from your computer.

Be green, read on screen!

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

--------------------------------------
Information gemaess UGB Par. 14 Abs. 1

Naturhistorisches Museum
1010 Wien, Burgring 7
Firmenbuchnummer: FN 236724z
Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien
UID: ATU 38020609
Rechtsform: Wissenschaftliche Anstalt
oeffentlichen Rechts des Bundes
--------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

--------------------------------------
Information gemaess UGB Par. 14 Abs. 1

Naturhistorisches Museum
1010 Wien, Burgring 7
Firmenbuchnummer: FN 236724z
Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien
UID: ATU 38020609
Rechtsform: Wissenschaftliche Anstalt
oeffentlichen Rechts des Bundes
--------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=ZSkFO3TNhj6e4JL4w4PrU7M47gj8uiOA