[Nhcoll-l] Digital objects vs. physical objects in collection management databases and how to manage them

[Schindel, David]

Hi, Andy,

We've had discussions about this in the Interagency Working Group on Scientific  Collections (IWGSC; see usfsc.nal.usda.gov).  If the digital representations of an object are not published, they would be archival material directly related to the specimen, and therefore part of the collection.  They would be equivalent to field notes, locality maps, audio and video recordings, etc.  lf they are submitted to a public database or other open access data repository (GenBank, CTBase, etc.) then these are publication events that can (and in a perfect world, would be) linked to the specimen record along with scholarly publications in which the specimen is cited.

In both cases, a comprehensively curated system of specimen digitization would allow users to discover and navigate to all these assets.

Best regards and stay well -

David


David E. Schindel, Research Associate
Office of the Provost
Smithsonian Institution
Email: schindeld at si.edu


________________________________
From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Bentley, Andrew Charles <abentley at ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 4:16 PM
To: nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Digital objects vs. physical objects in collection management databases and how to manage them


External Email - Exercise Caution

Hi all



I am trying to resolve a philosophical conundrum brought on by the ever-increasing mountain of digital data being produces from and associated with natural history collections.  My question is whether digital representations of an object (images, CT scans, etc.) should be treated as preparations of an object in a collections database similar to other physical preparations or treated differently?  For instance, in a fish collection like mine, you have a lot that has a certain number of specimens.  Some of those may be subsequently cleared and stained or have skeletons prepared.  These are traditionally handled as preparations of the original lot with the same catalog number (although in some collections they are treated as separate catalog numbers).  Now, however, you have digital representations of those physical objects such as images, CT scans, etc.  Should these also be treated as preparations or be treated differently - as digital products or linked as attachments to the physical objects?  To me, they are not physical objects but digital representations of the original object.  As such, they are somewhat different to a preparation.  This has implications when totaling traditional counts of objects in a collection as well as when publishing data from a collection to the aggregator community.  In some instances, this may be governed by the data model and business rules of the CMS you are using or by your personal preference.



I would be interested in hearing your views on this and how you handle this in your collection as I am not sure there is any community consensus as to which way to handle these.  I have heard of both methods being used in various collections.



Thanks in advance



Andy



     A  :                A  :               A  :

 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>

     V                   V                  V

Andy Bentley

Ichthyology Collection Manager

University of Kansas

Biodiversity Institute

Dyche Hall

1345 Jayhawk Boulevard

Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561

USA



Tel: (785) 864-3863

Fax: (785) 864-5335

Email: abentley at ku.edu<mailto:abentley at ku.edu>

http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cschindeld%40si.edu%7C05bb69872c7b4aa324d208d8486a936a%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C0%7C0%7C637338969870562799&sdata=05wkr90YzamCsPVnBhhcDKJXZOvQO4CCkun82aj8z3s%3D&reserved=0>



     A  :                A  :                A  :

 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>

     V                   V                   V


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20200825/af95ec20/attachment.html>