Metadata matters: perceptions on the implementation of Darwin Core in the biocollections cyberinfrastructure

What this was about

Wade Bishop, a social scientist, presented results of a survey (57 responses, about 98% from the US) of collections staff on Darwin Core implementation, building on earlier interviews and focus groups. Respondents were mostly senior collection managers or curators in academic settings who largely learned data skills on the job; 82% deposit data in GBIF. Open responses on challenges were coded into simplification of complex data (e.g. trawl start/end locations, host-microbe relationships, dynamicProperties flattening), lack of community guidelines, limited capacity, and other mapping issues, and most respondents were unsure how their data were licensed.

Why it matters. Evidence from practitioners on where Darwin Core implementation breaks down can guide guidelines, training and standard development.

In the room

• Earlier microfossil research found a gap between metadata users need for fitness-for-use and what is provided.
• 57 survey responses, about 98% from the US; 71% collection managers or curators; most in role for 10+ years; 75% academic; about half with PhDs.
• Most learned their data skills on the job.
• 82% deposit data in GBIF; storage spans cloud, institutional servers and local drives.
• Challenging elements include record-level metadata, occurrence, event and location terms.
• Challenges coded as simplification of complex data, lack of community guidelines, limited capacity, and others (e.g. administrative 'bookkeeping' metadata).
• Most respondents were unsure how their data are licensed, which matters for machine-actionable reuse.

Notable moments