Beyond the EU: DORA and NIS 2 Directive's Global Impact
Field Book Project CBHL 2012
1. Connecting Content:
The Field Book Project
at the Smithsonian and at the
California Academy of Sciences
Carolyn Sheffield, Project Manager
Field Book Project, Smithsonian
2. Two Projects
Field Book Project Connecting Content
• Led by PIs Rusty Russell • Led by PI Becky Morin and
and Anne Van Camp initiated with former co-PI
• Improve access to Danielle Castronovo
biodiversity field books • Enable links between field
• Cataloging, conserving, di books, specimens, and
gitizing published literature
7. Related Cataloging Practices
MARC
15.4%
No answer Dublin Core
33.3% 10.3%
EAD
12.8%
Specify Local
2.6% Schema
ICMS 17.9%
7.7%
8. Information Needs
• Geographical location – 67%
• Environment and habitat descriptions – 41%
• Species information – 33%
• Narrative or historical information – 15%
10. Metadata!
EAC Organization NCD Collection
OrgId: EACO9 CollectionId: NCDC78
Name: Smithsonian Institution, Title: Frederick Coville,
National Museum of Natural History, field books, 1890-1924
Department of Botany Owner: EACO9
Creator: EACP173
Description: The collection consists of
EAC Person Coville's field notes from botanical
collecting and observation efforts in …
PersonId: EACP173
Name: Coville, Frederick
(Frederick Vernon), 1867-1937
Dates: 1867-1937 MODS Item
Biographical history: Frederick Vernon MODSid: MODSI1281
Coville, botanist and blueberry Collection: NCDC78
breeder, was born in New York and Title: Field notes, Death Valley
educated… Expedition, 1891
Dates: 1891.05.10-1891.07.30
EAC Expedition Creator: EACP173
ExpId: EACE0017 Expedition: EACE 0017
Name: Death Valley Expedition Abstract: This item contains narrative
Dates: 1890-1891 notes and lists of botanical specimens
Description: The Death Valley Expedition collected or observed during Coville's
was the first biological survey to … research in Death Valley . …
11. Field Books Cataloged to Date
• Item Records: 5,220
• Collection Records: 450
• EAC (Authority) Records: 792
24. Next Steps
for Both Projects
• Testing, iterating, streamlining the Field Book
Registry
• EAC records for automated linking
• Acquiring new partners and content in all
aforementioned resources
• Crowd sourcing field note transcriptions and
text processing of taxonomic names
• Pilot project mash-ups made public and
encourage others to create their own
mashups
25. Acknowledgments
• Connecting Content, California Academy of
Sciences Library for contributing beautiful
slides
• Project teams and partners on Connecting
Content and Field Book Project
Department of Botany1,018 botanical field books created by 168 field biologists
Make all question marks the same. Maybe the blue one.How to bring together?We have these EAC records and that’s a really good start, but how are we going to get all of these records into one united Field Book Registry? This is not a new idea. The library world has OCLC and the natural history and taxonomic communities, already do this very well. GBIF does this, and projects like BISON and iDigBio are moving forward.Best practices are key, and we hope some of the research and decisions we’ve made can serve as ground work for an effective and easy to adopt approach. EAC archival records will be key. And there are also workflows and policies to work out. Which is the real meat of where we want to focus our attention as the developers are wrapping up the Registry. I’m hoping to hear input from a lot of you while we’re here on what that might look like.Of course, there’s also the technology and there’s a lot of work to be done there. We have a robust system under development in Islandora, which combines a Fedora repository with a Drupal content management system. So it’s designed to handle large files and amounts of information efficiently. We’ll be testing that system and some initial ingest partners as part of Connecting Content, our sister project out of the California Academy of Sciences.Establish best practices. Informed by information needs. Draw on existing standards. Tailor to provide low barrier for entry – potential contributors may have lots of resources, or only a few. We don’t want to create a system that requires massive resources just so we can say we’re responding to all user needs. So how do we do that?There are a number of existing descriptive standards out there – I’ll touch on how we selected ours, and how we used input from researchers to guide our implementation of those. I’ll then talk about how that can expand into a larger, community contributed resource.A big part of is best practices. The technology is important but first we have to get on the same page of what is needed and how to approach. I’m not implying that there is only one way, or one prescriptive solution, but agreeing on the underlying access points make compatibility and extension possible.
By Oxyman (Own work) [GFDL (<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html</a>), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-2.5 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
This mash up is a page I made from the Antarctic Field GuideThe Antarctic Field Guides is a collaborative tool offering free access to information that can help you identify Antarctic organisms. it allows users to build a tailor-made, customized guide, to be taken in the field or simply browsed. The pages are generated on-the-fly from the contents of authoritative, quality controlled data resources (SCAR-MarBIN, ANTABIF, RAMS, GBIF), and ensures the user to access up-to-date information about the group of organisms he/she is interested in. Even if the primary focus is for scientists, the AFGs are open and free for all to enjoy.
