Need help with paleo related terms, filter and display

[MortenHofft]

I need help to figure out how these new terms are best represented on records and in search. Else I suepect I will make us look as amateurs, when in fact it is just me not knowing this domain.

https://paleobiodb.org/classic/displaySearchColls
http://paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space&sectionnav=map
are the references that I've found. But it isn't obvious how to map them, nor if this is the ideal way to do it.

earliestEonOrLowestEonothem
latestEonOrHighestEonothem
earliestEraOrLowestErathem
latestEraOrHighestErathem
earliestPeriodOrLowestSystem
latestPeriodOrHighestSystem
earliestEpochOrLowestSeries
latestEpochOrHighestSeries
earliestAgeOrLowestStage
latestAgeOrHighestStage
lowestBiostratigraphicZone
highestBiostratigraphicZone
group (reserved word _group)
formation
member
bed

[CecSve]

Thank you for submitting the issue. This is something I would like to discuss with the Paleo Work Group in March/April, just FYI.

The first 10 terms are part of the chronostratigraphy vocabulary: gbif/vocabulary#121 and I would like to propose one search field for all 10. Suggested name: geological time (as chronostratigraphy would not mean a whole lot to non-geoscience people). I have taken the liberty to borrow this from elsewhere since it best describes how the data is structured for potential querying:

o Chronostratigraphic terms are akin to taxonomy or geography, where terms are distinct in DwC but hierarchical in practical use (e.g., if you search for “Early Cretaceous” you expect “Albian” to be included).
o Chronostratigraphy has an additional layer of complexity in its hierarchy because categorical labels are based on a continuous scale (e.g., if you search on boundaries of more recent as “Cretaceous” and less recent as “Triassic,” you expect “Jurassic” to be included).

So my hope is that search-wise, we can implement something similar to either scientificName or Location for those 10 fields. It is currently not in the plan to include time periods in the upcoming vocabulary but it may make sense so it can allow for a continuous scale to search from - I think a slide bar could be very intuitive for users.

[tkarim]

Some of us paleo folks chatted this morning and think one search for the 10 chronostratigraphy terms is ideal. It might change how we approach some of the vocabulary mapping, but it would be a great start.

[CecSve]

We could reduce the geological context search field to:

• Chronostratigraphy as one search field (based on vocabulary with concepts, ranks and ranges), called Geological time
• Lithostratigraphy for group, formation, member and bed
• Biostratigraphy for lowest and highest biostratigraphy

[MortenHofft]

For Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy:

We should process them to normalise common abbreviations, misspellings and such - but there isn't a vocabulary as such.

And then it should be indexed in a way that allows wild card search (currently it is a keyword term).

@CecSve I assume it is a list of values . So for Lithostratigraphy, it would be "lithostratigraphy": [bed, formation, group, member]?

[CecSve]

For Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy:

We should process them to normalise common abbreviations, misspellings and such - but there isn't a vocabulary as such.

And then it should be indexed in a way that allows wild card search (currently it is a keyword term).

@CecSve I assume it is a list of values . So for Lithostratigraphy, it would be "lithostratigraphy": [bed, formation, group, member]?

Yes, I believe so.

[RogerBurkhalter]

I strongly agree with the concept of expanding searches for these terms. However, it would be a very tall order to produce or harvest a controlled vocabulary in that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of possible combinations are possible. Additionally, these terms change not just over political boundaries but vary from surface to subsurface usage (fossils also occur in subsurface cores). Terms such as "bed" can be formal or informal (local) use. The informal terms may be the most accurate and descriptive, i.e. "bone-bed", "12-inch layer", etc, and are terms of inconsistent usage. Most countries and states/provences have geologic surveys where formal lithostratigraphic terms are recorded; beds, especially local use terms, not so much.

[CecSve]

I strongly agree with the concept of expanding searches for these terms. However, it would be a very tall order to produce or harvest a controlled vocabulary in that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of possible combinations are possible. Additionally, these terms change not just over political boundaries but vary from surface to subsurface usage (fossils also occur in subsurface cores). Terms such as "bed" can be formal or informal (local) use. The informal terms may be the most accurate and descriptive, i.e. "bone-bed", "12-inch layer", etc, and are terms of inconsistent usage. Most countries and states/provences have geologic surveys where formal lithostratigraphic terms are recorded; beds, especially local use terms, not so much.

Thanks for your input @RogerBurkhalter! GBIF does not plan to make vocabularies for any lithostratigraphy fields currently. The idea is to standardize the values when possible for the interpreted field on GBIF.org (mostly just changing upper/lower case values etc.) The plan is to have a controlled vocabulary for chronostratigraphy according to ICS (excluding regional terms for now).