Smith Vincent Stuart, French Lisa, Vincent Sarah, Woodburn Matt, Addink Wouter, Arvanitidis Christos, Bánki Olaf, Casino Ana, Dusoulier Francois, Glöckler Falko, Hobern Donald, Kalfatovic Martin R, Koureas Dimitrios, Mergen Patricia, Miller Joe, Schulman Leif, Juslén Aino
Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom Natural History Museum London United Kingdom.
Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands Naturalis Biodiversity Center Leiden Netherlands.
Biodivers Data J. 2022 Sep 16;10:e82953. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.10.e82953. eCollection 2022.
The landscape of biodiversity data infrastructures and organisations is complex and fragmented. Many occupy specialised niches representing narrow segments of the multidimensional biodiversity informatics space, while others operate across a broad front, but differ from others by data type(s) handled, their geographic scope and the life cycle phase(s) of the data they support. In an effort to characterise the various dimensions of the biodiversity informatics landscape, we developed a framework and dataset to survey these dimensions for ten organisations (DiSSCo, GBIF, iBOL, Catalogue of Life, iNaturalist, Biodiversity Heritage Library, GeoCASe, LifeWatch, eLTER ELIXIR), relative to both their current activities and long-term strategic ambitions.
The survey assessed the contact between the infrastructure organisations by capturing the breadth of activities for each infrastructure across five categories (data, standards, software, hardware and policy), for nine types of data (specimens, collection descriptions, opportunistic observations, systematic observations, taxonomies, traits, geological data, molecular data and literature) and for seven phases of activity (creation, aggregation, access, annotation, interlinkage, analysis and synthesis). This generated a dataset of 6,300 verified observations, which have been scored and validated by leading members of each infrastructure organisation. The resulting data allow high-level questions about the overall biodiversity informatics landscape to be addressed, including the greatest gaps and contact between organisations.
生物多样性数据基础设施和组织的格局复杂且分散。许多机构占据着特定的细分领域，代表着多维生物多样性信息学空间中的狭窄部分，而其他机构则在广泛的领域开展业务，但因所处理的数据类型、地理范围以及所支持数据的生命周期阶段不同而与其他机构存在差异。为了描述生物多样性信息学格局的各个维度，我们开发了一个框架和数据集，以调查十个组织（DiSSCo、GBIF、iBOL、生命目录、iNaturalist、生物多样性遗产图书馆、地理案例、生命观察、eLTER ELIXIR）在当前活动和长期战略目标方面的这些维度。
该调查通过获取每个基础设施在五个类别（数据、标准、软件、硬件和政策）、九种数据类型（标本、馆藏描述、机会性观测、系统性观测、分类学、特征、地质数据、分子数据和文献）以及七个活动阶段（创建、汇总、访问、注释、相互链接、分析和综合）的活动广度，评估了基础设施组织之间的联系。这生成了一个包含6300条经过验证的观测数据的数据集，这些数据已由每个基础设施组织的主要成员进行了评分和验证。所得数据使得能够解决有关生物多样性信息学总体格局的高层次问题，包括各组织之间最大的差距和联系。
