Show simple item record

Research Infrastructure Contact Zones: a framework and dataset to characterise the activities of major biodiversity informatics initiatives

dc.contributor.authorSmith, V.
dc.contributor.authorFrench, L.
dc.contributor.authorWoodburn, M.
dc.contributor.authorAddink, W.
dc.contributor.authorArvanitidis, C.
dc.contributor.authorbánki, O.
dc.contributor.authorCasino, A.
dc.contributor.authorDusoulier, F.
dc.contributor.authorGlöckler, F.
dc.contributor.authorHobern, D.
dc.contributor.authorkalfatovic, M. R.
dc.contributor.authorKoureas, D.
dc.contributor.authorMergen, P.
dc.contributor.authorMiller, J.
dc.contributor.authorSchulman, L.
dc.contributor.authorJuslén, A.
dc.date2022
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-14T13:26:14Z
dc.date.available2024-03-14T13:26:14Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://orfeo.belnet.be/handle/internal/12924
dc.descriptionThe 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 allows high-level questions about the overall biodiversity informatics landscape to be addressed, including the greatest gaps and contact between organisations.
dc.languageeng
dc.titleResearch Infrastructure Contact Zones: a framework and dataset to characterise the activities of major biodiversity informatics initiatives
dc.typeArticle
dc.subject.frascatiBiological sciences
dc.subject.frascatiComputer and information sciences
dc.subject.frascatiEarth and related Environmental sciences
dc.audienceScientific
dc.subject.freeInvertebrates
dc.source.titleBiodiversity Data Journal
dc.source.volume10
dc.source.page10
Orfeo.peerreviewedYes
dc.identifier.doi10.3897/BDJ.10.e82953
dc.identifier.urlhttps://bdj.pensoft.net/article/82953/list/8/
dc.identifier.rmca6417


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record