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

Tue Aug 25 16:21:21 EDT 2020

Hi Andy,

This is a great topic. We produce a large amount of 2D images (live and preserved) and CT data for our fish collection here at UF. We treat these data as prep types for a collection object. A major reason for this approach and not separating lots is to conserve collection space. Given the rate that we are imaging our specimens, we wouldn't be able to also support our future growth of newly acquired collections. Additionally, we see the value of having image data as prep types so that the collection object can be the one stop for all "metadata" including from other individuals from the same lot. For example, although we try to CT scan individuals from tissued lots to increase data value, we usually don't scan the individuals that were tissued because it would be a loss in morphological data captured (e.g. missing fins, epaxial tissue, etc.).  One catalog number to rule them all. Guess we're a bunch of lumpers at heart.

Our system for tracking down the imaged individual in a lot is still being improved (luckily we rarely get those types of requests). When possible, we image lots with only one individual. If we image lots with several individuals, then we wrap that individual with cheese cloth and/or include tag(s).

Adding these media as prep types in Specify allows us to query the number of multimedia that we have, similarly to tissues. This number only include files existing in Specify, since derivatives and raw data are a whole other can of worms.

Best,
Zach
--
Zachary S. Randall
Biological Scientist & Imaging Lab Manager
Florida Museum of Natural History
1659 Museum Road
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800
352-273-1958|Rm. 277

www.zacharyrandall.org
Twitter: @Zach__Randall

From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> On Behalf Of Schindel, David
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 11:09 AM
To: Bentley, Andrew Charles <abentley at ku.edu>; nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Digital objects vs. physical objects in collection management databases and how to manage them

[External Email]

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<mailto:schindeld at si.edu>

________________________________
From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu>> on behalf of Bentley, Andrew Charles <abentley at ku.edu<mailto:abentley at ku.edu>>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 4:16 PM
To: nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu> <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cschindeld-2540si.edu-257C05bb69872c7b4aa324d208d8486a936a-257C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c-257C0-257C0-257C637338969870562799-26sdata-3D05wkr90YzamCsPVnBhhcDKJXZOvQO4CCkun82aj8z3s-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAw&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=BsjUEaAzErVnOJA4kXSO_g&m=djrI-zIT93wiMGeria7qiHeg1OnPwpMDkL1fmqCoeBk&s=z6APnia86i0F27gg3vvbRfIh_HCwEBpFrZWKVObYaYU&e=>

     A  :                A  :                A  :

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

     V                   V                   V

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20200825/621a4d50/attachment.html>