Anthropology/cultural knowledge terms needed across vocabularies #28
Comments
baskaufs
added
help wanted
Interoperability
|
I think anthropological and cultural knowledge on species is very important. I would be keen on seeing how this can be accommodated. We are working with building a Medicinal Plants system for traditional medicine. The names of plants in classical texts would also need a system. |
|
The Atlas of Living Australia has been working over the past couple of years with several communities in Australia to add indigenous language names for animals and plants into the ALA. We have also been involved in discussions about whether or not Traditional Knowledge labels (https://localcontexts.org/project/what-is-a-tk-label/) would be useful. I would be interested to be involved in any discussions. |
|
Dear all, See http://demca.tacc.utexas.edu/ Unfortunately we are just porting everything over to TACC (12,000 collections data, 25,000 photos, hours of time-coded discussions in Indigenous languages). Within a few weeks this will be done. The in-process data is at http://demca.tacc.utexas.edu/collections/misc/collprofiles.php The open-source code is on GitHub. I would very much like to receive any email correspondence as it is just by accident that a colleague forwarded me this thread. My email is [email protected] (Jonathan D. Amith) Finally, please note that we have developed in addition to standards and controlled vocab for metadata, Language, Personnel and Community modules to ensure consistency in project data. Here is part of the Field Guide for a Totonac village, most of the collection and photography and databasing, fieldwork, interviews, was done by native speakers. Familia-Araliaceae-de-Zongoztla-Illustrated-Guide_2020-05-01.pdf |
|
Ooops. I realized that the fantastic programmer I am working with just moved some of the narratives (transcribed and translated) about local flora to the DEMCA portal at UTexas. This might be interesting to those who appreciate native speaker commentary on flora and fauna The list is here: But in transfer some seem to have been lost and I need to reupload! Finally, these are photos taken by a young Mixtec woman (mjc), a young Nahuat-speaking man (mgs) and a Totonac-speaking young man (olf). Each is interested in documenting local flora of their communities. The Totonac and Nahuatl documentation is well advanced. |
|
The above comments touch on important aspects of this overarching need. As @baskaufs mentions in the original post, this issue of inclusion goes beyond just Audubon Core. All the standards work we do should be flexible enough to allow for the full spectrum of work done by both the biodiversity and the natural history communities. Some data, like local community names and uses, may require dedicated elements, but others could be accommodated through existing standards that were intentionally flexible in their definitions. Natural History museums do not exclusively have biological collections, we must also manage and share cultural and mineral sciences materials. Natural history museums need standards like Audubon Core and Collections Description among others to be useful and informative for our diverse audiences, not exclusively biodiversity researchers. And no, I am not advocating that TDWG standards should be catch-alls to describe every last possibility, just the major aspects we routinely encounter. As the examples note above, this cultural data, usually managed outside of biology based collections, is vital to associate and link to the biodiversity data. Enabling our standards to incorporate these data enriches our content and expands how the data can be used. |
|
I am presently applying for a third NEH Digital Humanities Advancement grant to discuss metadata standards and controlled vocabulary for ethnobiological collections (or biological collections). We will propose these as extensions to Darwin and Audobon Core standards at the end of the grant period (2022, perhaps). Audobon Core is better able to deal with sound files and other standards (e.g. OLAC) with language recordings. See http://demca.tacc.utexas.edu/ethno/eaf/eafdetail.php?mediaid=105&collid=0 If anyone is interested in being part of the working group, which would involve virtual meetings for a couple of hours every 3 or 4 months, starting in 2021 if the grant is successful, please write to me at [email protected] The DEMCA organization on GitHub is here: https://github.com/DEMCA-Ethnobiology The DEMCA Symbiota repository is here: https://github.com/DEMCA-Ethnobiology/Symbiota |
|
There are some relevant terms in the GGBN standard. https://www.tdwg.org/standards/ggbn/ I don't know what the current state of moving that draft standard to compliance with the SDS is, but there are terms in it related to benefits and rights that likely apply to ethnographic materials as well as genetic material. |
|
Another resource relevant to this issue is https://native-land.ca/ |
During the 2020-05-20 Audubon Core Maintenance Group meeting, we spent some time discussing the need for anthropological and cultural knowledge terms to be used in metadata records for media (sounds, images) and also specimens (biological materials associated with cultural items). This includes fields to fulfill legal requirements related to traditional knowledge (such as legal rights, ethical documentation) and anthropological fields such as creator of an object, language, cultural group, etc.
This is really out of scope of the current Audubon discussion about sound term additions, but is an important issue that goes across Audubon Core, Darwin Core, and the developing Collections Description vocabulary. Given the cross-vocabulary nature of these terms, it would be helpful if the TAG could take some leadership on figuring out how to establish TDWG-wide terms related to this area.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: