Historical DarwinCore wiki site. Deprecated.

Note: These Wiki pages are for historical purposes, they do not reflect the content of the current standard, which can be found at

* http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm

Paleontology Element Definitions v1.0 (2005-07-03, current)

A table containing the definitions of the elements of the paleontological data extension to the Darwin Core 2. Description:

This document is an easy-to-read (html) representation of the paleontology extension of the DarwinCore2 version 1.4. This schema and documentation are not yet recommended for implementation. (See remarks on the home page concerning versions of the DarwinCore2 currently in use.)

This is not the normative representation of the draft standard. In the case of any conflict between the two representations, definitions and values in XML schema take precedence.

Status:

• Ready for review, July 3, 2005.
• Not for implementation.
• The discussion is on-going and this documentation will continue to be updated to reflect the evolving consensus.

Submitted by:

Workshop on Paleontology Collection Digitization, Springfield, Illinois (1 Jun 2005).

Submission Date: July 3, 2005

Date last modified: July 3, 2005

Created by tucotuco Last modified 2005-07-09 04:36 PM

TODO: This needs to be incorporated somewhere properly.

• Paleo Portal -- (used in PaleoPortal)

Comments

Suggestion for a more generic scheme Posted by huberrob at 2005-07-12 06:06 AM

Hi,

Great that you started to create this extension!

I have a suggestion for the paleontology extension. Maybe a more generic xml scheme could be found?

For example the use of attributes could help which indicate the 'type' of stratigraphic unit.

In the XML we could then simply declare an base Element such as StratigraphicRange follwed by the stratigraphic units which define the range. This Element should be repeatable of course.

Additionally other attributes which indicate the 'range position' (upper, lower) and the 'certainty' of the age assignment (e.g. certain, uncertain, ...).

The Unit should additionally have other Elements which indicate the name and code of the unit.

Of course, some of the attributes could also be SubElements.

An Example taken from Berggren 1997:

Stratigraphic Range P3 to P5; ?P6 could then be described in XMl:

<StratigraphicRange>
<StratigraphicUnit type="Biostratigraphic Interval Zone" certainty="certain" position="lower">
<Name>Morozovella angulata-Globanomalina pseudomenardii Interval Zone</Name>
<Code>P3</Code>
</StratigraphicUnit>
<StratigraphicUnit type="Biostratigraphic Concurrent Range Zone" certainty="certain" position="upper">
<Name>Globanomalina pseudomenardii/Acarinina subshaerica Concurrent Range Zone</Name>
<Code>P5</Code>
</StratigraphicUnit>
<StratigraphicUnit type="Biostratigraphic Partial Range Zone" certainty="uncertain" position="upper">
<Name>Morozovella subbotinae Partial Range Zone</Name>
<Code>P6</Code>
</StratigraphicUnit>
</StratigraphicRange>

Robert Huber,

WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) University Bremen Leobener Strasse POP 330 440 28359 Bremen

Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505

e-mail: (robert-dot-huber-at-stratigraphy-dot-net)

Reply to this comment: More generic scheme Posted by jtheodor at 2005-07-25 08:39 AM)

Have you looked at ABCDEFG? (Posted by jtheodor at 2006-04-03 02:10 PM)

Reply to this comment: More generic scheme Posted by jtheodor at 2005-07-25 08:39 AM)

Beyond being more generic, may I ask what advantage that might have? I ask because the main goal here was compatibility with the largest number of museum collections databases. It's fairly similar to what is currently being used by Paleo Portal, and should be compatible with what's out there. Is there really a need for a more recursive generic scheme?

---

generic scheme Posted by: huberrob 2005-09-26 01:30 AM

Dear Jtheodor,

Thanks for the comment, unfortunately I didn't visit the site for a while, therefore my late answer. Taken the Berggren example I gave, I think the advantage is quite clear? It could not be described by the draft scheme!

I have some 100 similar datasets in the Stratigraphy.Net database and could hardly contribute or choose to loose information when I'd use the current draft. Maybe other data sources have or will have the same problem.

In general, I think a scheme which aims to be a 'de facto standard' should try to be as generic as possible. This would to allow to involve as many data source as possible to contribute and should not have only some of the current players in mind.

Robert Huber