 |
Welcome to the EMuUsers discussion forums. All registered users are
encouraged to post new topics and also to participate in existing
discussions.
* You must register first if you wish to make postings.
* You can subscribe to one or more forums to receive email notification when new messages are posted.
* Click on a correspondent’s name to find out their title and institution.
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
David Smith
Posts:24
 |
| 05-01-2008 3:14 AM |
 Alert
|
Calling all Earth Scientists into the discussion
At the North American EMu users meeting it was highlighted that there was a difference of opinion over 'morpho-types' between Life science and Earth scientists.
PLEASE, PLEASE get your Palaeontologists involved with the forum posted by Joanna to ensure that this Taxonomy proposal is all encompassing and all inclusive.
At the meeting I also had some informal discussions with a number of institute reps around the subject of Mineral Taxonomy. I know there are a number of institutes with Mineralogy/Geology departments using EMu, or in the process of migrating into EMu. Whilst Mineral Taxonomy is a subject that doesn't automatically spring to mind in the context of the Taxonomy Module, if a generic module is to be developed to cover the Natural History sector, I feel it is only fair that all potential stakeholders have the option to buy in.
Compared to Life Science Taxonomy, Mineral Taxonomy is a doddle and thus, although this has come along late in the game, any discussions on inclusion of Mineral Taxonomy over the coming weeks should not hold up any long term development plans. Nor should it impact preliminary screen designs as I see it being mutually exclusive.
As an aid to discussion I present the screen designs as customised by the NHM for Taxonomy for the following materials (see attached):
Minerals
Rocks
Soils
The main points are :
1. Inclusion of the full IMA approved species list with formulae.
2. Dana and Strunz hierarchies sit side by side on the species record for comparison.
3. All non-approved names point to the the approved species name thus generating synonymy.
4. Link to the Catalogue record for all 'Type', Co-Type' representation in the Collection.
Please discuss this proposal with your Mineral Scientists and make any suggestions for modifications to the model or the screens..
I would be very happy to co-ordinate side discussions on Mineral/Geology Taxonomy and will feed in the thoughts of the community to Joanna. Please email me at d.a.smith@nhm.ac.uk
Dave Smith
Natural History Museum, London
Additional
Some may argue that Petrology classification does not have clear enough rules to be placed within the Taxonomy Module. To do so may create additional work when cataloguing an item. To some extent I agree, particularly within the mystical world of naming sedimentary rocks. The NHM used the Le Maitre edited (2002) "Recommendations of the IUGS subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks" to generate a 4 layered hierarchy. This has been extended in the higher levels to Sedimentary and Metamorphic rocks. Much work needs to be done in populating the hierarchy and there is the potential to generate synonymy by having 'approved' and non-approved' terms.
I would be very happy to hear any suggestions for improvement to the model for Petrology and any references/ web resources to capture authoritative names of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. |
Attachment: Mineral Science Taxonomy.ppt
|
|
|
|
David Smith
Posts:24
|
| 01-02-2008 8:28 PM |
Alert
|
I would like to throw a question into the pool.
As you can see from the screen shots, on the Types Tab we have a table consisting of attachments to all specimens (Catalogue records) that have a type designation against which is the Type designation.
On those respective Catalogue records, we just have a tickbox indicating Type? = "Yes" or "No". The "Yes" is activated whenever a Catalogue record is attached to the Types Tab in the Taxonomy Module.
I'm wondering whether this is a little backwards??
I still feel we should keep the Types Tab to show of which species we have Type material. However, I feel the actual Type designation should be on the Catalogue record of the specimen that IS Type.
So, on a particular specimen record one attaches a Taxonomy record to document the specimen's name. By default, the specimen will be non-Type. However adjacent to the name, or on a Type Status Tab one might have a grid consisting of perhaps a lookup of Type designations (Type, Co-Type, Holo-Type etc.) and the ability to attach to the Type Citation.
I believe this is a closer model to the way Taxonomy is used in the Life Sciences. It appears to make the workflow for searching for Type specimens simpler, and in theory should make reporting easier too.
What does anybody else think?
Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
 |