Collective Description Research Articles

Latimer Core: A new data standard for collection descriptions

The Latimer Core (LtC) schema, named after Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, is a standard designed to support the representation and discovery of natural science collections by structuring data about the groups of objects that those collections and their subcomponents encompass. Individual items within those groups are represented through other emerging or current standards (e.g., Darwin Core, ABCD). The LtC classes and properties aim to represent information that describes these groupings in enough detail to inform deeper discovery of the resources contained within them. The standard has been developed under the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) Interest Group, and evolved from the earlier work of the Natural Collection Descriptions (NCD) group. Version 1 of the standard includes 23 classes, each with two or more properties (Fig. 1 and Suppl. material 1). The central concept of the standard is the ObjectGroup class, which represents 'an intentionally grouped set of objects with one or more common characteristics'. Arranged around the ObjectGroup are a set of classes that are commonly used to describe and classify the objects within the ObjectGroup, classes covering aspects of the custodianship, management and tracking of the collections, a generic class (MeasurementOrFact) for storing qualitative or quantitative measures within the standard, and a set of classes that are used to describe the structure and description of the dataset. Latimer Core is intended to be sufficiently flexible and scalable to apply to a wide range of collection description use cases, from describing the overall collections holdings of an institution to the contents of a single drawer of material. Various approaches are used to support this flexibility, including the use of generic classes to represent organisations, people, roles and identifiers, and enabling flexible relationships for constructing data models that meet different use cases. The collection description scheme concept is introduced to enable adopters to specify rules in the use of LtC within each specific implementation, demonstrated in Fig. 2. Guidance and reference examples for different modelling approaches to suit different use cases are provided in the LtC guidance documentation. The LtC standard has significant overlap with existing data standards (Suppl. material 2) that represent, for example, individual objects and occurrences, organisations, people and activities. Where possible, LtC has either borrowed terms directly from these standards or less formally aligned with them. Achieving a balance between offering a standard that is sufficiently comprehensive to stand alone and maintains a low technical barrier to adoption whilst minimalising duplication of effort in the context of the wider standards landscape is a notable challenge in the standard development process. The draft standard was submitted to the TDWG Executive in June 2022 to begin the process of formal review and ratification. This includes a list of standard terms and a GitHub wiki of guidance on the concepts behind and use of the standard. In the meantime, the Task Group will continue working on reference examples and serialisations, and working with infrastructures such as the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) consortium, the GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) Registry of Scientific Collections, the CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities) Registry of Collections and the Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) on potential roadmaps towards adoption. In this presentation, we will introduce the key Latimer Core deliverables, highlight some of the challenges faced in the development process, and discuss the potential for community adoption.

A Data Standard for Dynamic Collection Descriptions

The utopian vision is of a future where a digital representation of each object in our collections is accessible through the internet and sustainably linked to other digital resources. This is a long term goal however, and in the meantime there is an urgent need to share data about our collections at a higher level with a range of stakeholders (Woodburn et al. 2020). To sustainably achieve this, and to aggregate this information across all natural science collections, the data need to be standardised (Johnston and Robinson 2002). To this end, the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) Interest Group has developed a data standard for describing collections, which is approaching formal review for ratification as a new TDWG standard. It proposes 20 classes (Suppl. material 1) and over 100 properties that can be used to describe, categorise, quantify, link and track digital representations of natural science collections, from high-level approximations to detailed breakdowns depending on the purpose of a particular implementation. The wide range of use cases identified for representing collection description data means that a flexible approach to the standard and the underlying modelling concepts is essential. These are centered around the ‘ObjectGroup’ (Fig. 1), a class that may represent any group (of any size) of physical collection objects, which have one or more common characteristics. This generic definition of the ‘collection’ in ‘collection descriptions’ is an important factor in making the standard flexible enough to support the breadth of use cases. For any use case or implementation, only a subset of classes and properties within the standard are likely to be relevant. In some cases, this subset may have little overlap with those selected for other use cases. This additional need for flexibility means that very few classes and properties, representing the core concepts, are proposed to be mandatory. Metrics, facts and narratives are represented in a normalised structure using an extended MeasurementOrFact class, so that these can be user-defined rather than constrained to a set identified by the standard. Finally, rather than a rigid underlying data model as part of the normative standard, documentation will be developed to provide guidance on how the classes in the standard may be related and quantified according to relational, dimensional and graph-like models. So, in summary, the standard has, by design, been made flexible enough to be used in a number of different ways. The corresponding risk is that it could be used in ways that may not deliver what is needed in terms of outputs, manageability and interoperability with other resources of collection-level or object-level data. To mitigate this, it is key for any new implementer of the standard to establish how it should be used in that particular instance, and define any necessary constraints within the wider scope of the standard and model. This is the concept of the ‘collection description scheme,’ a profile that defines elements such as: which classes and properties should be included, which should be mandatory, and which should be repeatable; which controlled vocabularies and hierarchies should be used to make the data interoperable; how the collections should be broken down into individual ObjectGroups and interlinked, and how the various classes should be related to each other. which classes and properties should be included, which should be mandatory, and which should be repeatable; which controlled vocabularies and hierarchies should be used to make the data interoperable; how the collections should be broken down into individual ObjectGroups and interlinked, and how the various classes should be related to each other. Various factors might influence these decisions, including the types of information that are relevant to the use case, whether quantitative metrics need to be captured and aggregated across collection descriptions, and how many resources can be dedicated to amassing and maintaining the data. This process has particular relevance to the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) consortium, the design of which incorporates use cases for storing, interlinking and reporting on the collections of its member institutions. These include helping users of the European Loans and Visits System (ELViS) (Islam 2020) to discover specimens for physical and digital loans by providing descriptions and breakdowns of the collections of holding institutions, and monitoring digitisation progress across European collections through a dynamic Collections Digitisation Dashboard. In addition, DiSSCo will be part of a global collections data ecosystem requiring interoperation with other infrastructures such as the GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) Registry of Scientific Collections, the CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities) Registry of Collections and Index Herbariorum. In this presentation, we will introduce the draft standard and discuss the process of defining new collection description schemes using the standard and data model, and focus on DiSSCo requirements as examples of real-world collection descriptions use cases.

DiSSCo e-Services to Serve Global Community Needs

DiSSCo (Distributed System of Scientific Collections) is a research infrastructure (RI) under development, which will provide services for the global research community to support and enhance physical and digital access to the natural history collections in Europe. These services include training, support, documentation and e-services. This talk will focus on the e-services and will give an overview of the current status, roadmap and first results as an introduction to the next talks in the session, which focus on some of the services in more detail and the standards work undertaken in Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) to enable them. The RI community will provide the envisioned e-services, which will use the novel FAIR Digital Object (FDO) infrastructure serving digital specimens from the European collections. The infrastructure will provide integrated data analysis, enhanced interpretation, annotation and access services for community curation and visualisation. The FDO infrastructure enables specimen data to be (re-)connected with genomic, geographical, morphological, taxonomic and environmental information through the digital specimen, making them Digital Extended Specimens. A large number of user stories have been collected through the DiSSCo-linked projects ICEDIG, SYNTHESYS+ and DiSSCo Prepare, to guide which e-Services to build and what functionality to provide. These user stories are publicly available in a github repository. The e-services are developed based on the user stories and prioritization provided by collection providers and the scientific community. A variety of mechanisms are used to collect input: surveys, workshops, roundtables and workpackage meetings, and feedback from users that have already been using beta versions of some of the services. DiSSCo aims to become operational in 2026 but several of the services are already being piloted or implemented. Experimental services and demonstrators are publicly available through DiSSCo Labs for testing and feedback. By connecting the specimen data with derived and related information in a FAIR way (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable), the e-services will accelerate biodiversity discovery and support novel research questions. The FDO infrastructure has a data model that also integrates the PROV Ontology (PROV-O), which allows for the e-services to capture activities and improve the visibility of researcher contributions. This vision towards FAIR and high quality data is essential for community curation of the specimen data and making better use of the limited number of experts available. To provide the DiSSCo e-services in a FAIR way, the data derived from the natural history collections in Europe needs to be integrated as one virtual collection. The data has to be findable and accessible as soon as it is being created for services like a Specimen Data Refinery prior to publication in a facility like GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). This requires new standards for describing collections and specimen data. Standards being created to fill these gaps are TDWG CD (Collection Descriptions) and TDWG MIDS (Minimum Information about a Digital Specimen). The DiSSCo e-Services vision brings the data, standards, and processes together to serve the user community.

Unity in Variety: Developing a collection description standard by consensus

Digitisation and publication of museum specimen data is happening worldwide, but far from complete. Museums can start by sharing what they know about their holdings at a higher level, long before each object has its own record. Information about what is held in collections worldwide is needed by many stakeholders including collections managers, funders, researchers, policy-makers, industry, and educators. To aggregate this information from collections, the data need to be standardised (Johnston and Robinson 2002). So, the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) Task Group is developing a data standard for describing collections, which gives the ability to provide: automated metrics, using standardised collection descriptions and/or data derived from specimen datasets (e.g., counts of specimens) and a global registry of physical collections (i.e., digitised or non-digitised). automated metrics, using standardised collection descriptions and/or data derived from specimen datasets (e.g., counts of specimens) and a global registry of physical collections (i.e., digitised or non-digitised). Outputs will include a data model to underpin the new standard, and guidance and reference implementations for the practical use of the standard in institutional and collaborative data infrastructures. The Task Group employs a community-driven approach to standard development. With international participation, workshops at the Natural History Museum (London 2019) and the MOBILISE workshop (Warsaw 2020) allowed over 50 people to contribute this work. Our group organized online "barbecues" (BBQs) so that many more could contribute to standard definitions and address data model design challenges. Cloud-based tools (e.g., GitHub, Google Sheets) are used to organise and publish the group's work and make it easy to participate. A Wikibase instance is also used to test and demonstrate the model using real data. There are a range of global, regional, and national initiatives interested in the standard (see Task Group charter). Some, like GRSciColl (now at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)), Index Herbariorum (IH), and the iDigBio US Collections List are existing catalogues. Others, including the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) and the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo), include collection descriptions as a key part of their near-term development plans. As part of the EU-funded SYNTHESYS+ project, GBIF organized a virtual workshop: Advancing the Catalogue of the World's Natural History Collections to get international input for such a resource that would use this CD standard. Some major complexities present themselves in designing a standardised approach to represent collection descriptions data. It is not the first time that the natural science collections community has tried to address them (see the TDWG Natural Collections Description standard). Beyond natural sciences, the library community in particular gave thought to this (Heaney 2001, Johnston and Robinson 2002), noting significant difficulties. One hurdle is that collections may be broken down into different degrees of granularity according to different criteria, and may also overlap so that a single object can be represented in more than one collection description. Managing statistics such as numbers of objects is complex due to data gaps and variable degrees of certainty about collection contents. It also takes considerable effort from collections staff to generate structured data about their undigitised holdings. We need to support simple, high-level collection summaries as well as detailed quantitative data, and to be able to update as needed. We need a simple approach, but one that can also handle the complexities of data, scope, and social needs, for digitised and undigitised collections. The data standard itself is a defined set of classes and properties that can be used to represent groups of collection objects and their associated information. These incorporate common characteristics ('dimensions') by which we want to describe, group and break down our collections, metrics for quantifying those collections, and properties such as persistent identifiers for tracking collections and managing their digital counterparts. Existing terms from other standards (e.g. Darwin Core, ABCD) are re-used if possible. The data model (Fig. 1) underpinning the standard defines the relationships between those different classes, and ensures that the structure as well as the content are comparable across different datasets. It centres around the core concept of an 'object group', representing a set of physical objects that is defined by one or more dimensions (e.g., taxonomy and geographic origin), and linked to other entities such as the holding institution. To the object group, quantitative data about its contents are attached (e.g. counts of objects or taxa), along with more qualitative information describing the contents of the group as a whole. In this presentation, we will describe the draft standard and data model with examples of early adoption for real-world and example data. We will also discuss the vision of how the new standard may be adopted and its potential impact on collection discoverability across the collections community.

European Loans and Visits System (ELViS) as a Use Case for a Collection Descriptions Standard

The European Loans and Visits System (ELViS) is an e-service in development designed to improve access to natural history collections across Europe. Bringing together heterogeneous datasets about institutions, people, collections and specimens, ELViS will provide an e-service (with application programming interfaces (APIs) and portal) that handles various stages of collections-based research. One of the main functionalities of ELViS is to facilitate loan and visit requests related to collections. To facilitate activities such as searching for collections, requesting loans, generating reports on collection usage, and ensuring interoperability with existing and new systems and services, ELViS must use a standard way of describing collections. In this talk, I show how ELViS can use the Collection Descriptions (CD) standard currently being developed by the CD Task Group at TDWG. I will provide a brief introduction to ELViS, summarise the current development efforts, and show how the Collection Description standard can support specific user requirements (gathered via an extensive set of user stories). I will also provide insight into the data elements within ELViS (see Fig. 1) and how they relate to the Collection Description data model.

Join the Dots: Adding collection assessment to collection descriptions

The natural science collections community has identified an increasing need for shared, structured and interoperable data standards that can be used to describe the totality of institutional collection holdings, whether digitised or not. Major international initiatives - including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) and the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) - consider the current lack of standards to be a major barrier, which must be overcome to further their strategic aims and contribute to an open, discoverable catalogue of global collections. The Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) group is looking to address this issue with a new data standard for collection descriptions. At an institutional level, this concept of collection descriptions aligns strongly with the need to use a structured and more data-driven approach to assessing and working with collections, both to identify and prioritise investment and effort, and to monitor the impact of the work. Use cases include planning conservation and collection moves, prioritising specimen digitisation activities, and informing collection development strategy. The data can be integrated with the collection description framework for ongoing assessments of the state of the collection. This approach was pioneered with the ‘Move the Dots’ methodology by the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, started in 2009 and run annually since. The collection is broken down into several hundred discrete subcollections, for each of which the number of objects was estimated and a numeric rank allocated according to a range of assessment criteria. This method has since been adopted by several other institutions, including Naturalis Biodiversity Centre, Museum für Naturkunde and Natural History Museum, London (NHM). First piloted in 2016, and now implemented as a core framework, the NHM’s adaptation, ‘Join the Dots’, divides the collection into approximately 2,600 ‘collection units’. The breakdown uses formal controlled lists and hierarchies, primarily taxonomy, type of object, storage location and (where relevant) stratigraphy, which are mapped to external authorities such as the Catalogue of Life and Paleobiology Database. The collection breakdown is enhanced with estimations of number of items, and ranks from 1 to 5 for each collection unit against 17 different criteria. These are grouped into four categories of ‘Condition’, ‘Information’ (including digital records), ‘Importance and Significance’ and ‘Outreach’. Although requiring significant time investment from collections staff to provide the estimates and assessments, this methodology has yielded a rich dataset that supports both discoverability (collection descriptions) and management (collection assessment). Links to further datasets about the building infrastructure and environmental conditions also make it into a powerful resource for planning activities such as collections moves, pest monitoring and building work. We have developed dynamic dashboards to provide rich visualisations for exploring, analysing and communicating the data. As an ongoing, embedded activity for collections staff, there will also be a build-up of historical data going forward, enabling us to see trends, track changes to the collection, and measure the impact of projects and events. The concept of Join the Dots also offers a generic, institution-agnostic model for enhancing the collection description framework with additional metrics that add value for strategic management and resourcing of the collection. In the design and implementation, we’ve faced challenges that should be highly relevant to the TDWG CD group, such as managing the dynamic breakdown of collections across multiple dimensions. We also face some that are yet to be resolved, such as a robust model for managing the evolving dataset over time. We intend to contribute these use cases into the development of the new TDWG data standard and be an early adopter and reference case. We envisage that this could constitute a common model that, where resources are available, provides the ability to add greater depth and utility to the world catalogue of collections.

Exposing the Dark Data of Undigitized Collections: A TDWG global standard for collection descriptions

Aggregating content of museum and scientific collections worldwide offers us the opportunity to realize a virtual museum of our planet and the life upon it through space and time. By mapping specimen-level data records to standards and publishing this information, an increasing number of collections contribute to a digitally accessible wealth of knowledge. Visualizing these digital records by parameters such as collection type and geographic origin, helps collections and institutions to better understand their digital holdings and compare them to other such collections, as well as enabling researchers to find specimens and specimen data quickly (Singer et al. 2018). At the higher level of collections, related people and their activities, and especially the great majority of material that is yet to be digitised, we know much less. Many collections hold material not yet digitally discoverable in any form. For those that do publish collection-level data, it is commonly text-based data without the Global Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) or the controlled vocabularies that would support quantitative collection metrics and aid discovery of related expertise and publications. To best understand and plan for our world’s bio- and geodiversity represented in collections, we need standardised, quantitative collections-level metadata. Various groups planet-wide are actively developing tools to capture this much-needed metadata, including information about the backlog, and more detailed information about institutions and their activities (e.g. staffing, space, species-level inventories, geographic and taxonomic expertise, and related publications) (Smith et al. 2018). The Biodiversity Information Standards organization (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) Data Standard Task Group aims to provide a data standard for describing natural scientific collections, which enables the ability to provide: automated metrics, using standardised collection descriptions and/or data derived from specimen datasets (e.g., counts of specimens) and a global registry of physical collections (either digitised or non-digitised). automated metrics, using standardised collection descriptions and/or data derived from specimen datasets (e.g., counts of specimens) and a global registry of physical collections (either digitised or non-digitised). The group will also produce a data model to underpin the new standard, and provide guidance and reference implementations for the practical use of the standard in institutional and collaborative data infrastructures. Our task group includes members from a myriad of groups with a stake in mobilizing such data at local, regional, domain-specific and global levels. With such a standard adopted, it will be possible to effectively share data across different community resources. So far, we have carried out landscape analyses of existing collection description frameworks, and amassed a portfolio of use cases from the group as well as from a range of other sources, including the Collection Descriptions Dashboard working group of ICEDIG ("Innovation and consolidation for large scale digitisation of natural heritage"), iDigBio (Integrated Digitized Biocollections), Smithsonian, Index Herbariorum, the Field Museum, GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), GRBio (Global Registry of Biodiversity Repositories) and fishfindR.net. These were used to develop a draft data model, and between them inform the first iteration of CD draft data standard. A variety of challenges present themselves in developing this standard. Some relate to the standard development process itself, such as identifying (often learning) effective tools and methods for collaborative working and communication across globally distributed volunteers. Others concern the scope and gaining consensus from stakeholders, across a wide range of disciplines, while maintaining achievable goals. Further challenges arise from the requirement to develop a data model and standard that support such a variety of use cases and priorities, while retaining interoperability and manageability of the data. We will present some of these challenges and methods for addressing them, and summarise the progress and draft outputs of the group so far. We will also discuss the vision of how the new standard may be adopted and its potential impact on collections discoverability across the natural science collections community.

Structured natural‐language descriptions for semantic content retrieval of visual materials

AbstractKeyword search of multimedia collections lacks precision and automatic parsing of unrestricted natural language annotations lacks accuracy. We propose a structure for natural language descriptions of the semantic content of visual materials that requires descriptions to be (modified) keywords, phrases, or simple sentences, with components that are grammatical relations common to many languages. This structure makes it easy to implement a collection's descriptions as a relational database, enabling efficient search via the application of well‐developed database‐indexing methods. Description components may be elements from external resources (thesaurus, ontology, database, or knowledge base). This provides a rich superstructure for the meaningful retrieval of images by their semantic contents.

Structured natural‐language descriptions for semantic content retrieval of visual materials

Keyword search of multimedia collections lacks precision and automatic parsing of unrestricted natural language annotations lacks accuracy. We propose a structure for natural language descriptions of the semantic content of visual materials that requires descriptions to be (modified) keywords, phrases, or simple sentences, with components that are grammatical relations common to many languages. This structure makes it easy to implement a collection's descriptions as a relational database, enabling efficient search via the application of well-developed database-indexing methods. Description components may be elements from external resources (thesaurus, ontology, database, or knowledge base). This provides a rich superstructure for the meaningful retrieval of images by their semantic contents.