Biological and ecological traits of marine species.

This paper reviews the utility and availability of biological and ecological traits for marine species so as to prioritise the development of a world database on marine species traits. In addition, the 'status' of species for conservation, that is, whether they are introduced or invasive, of fishery or aquaculture interest, harmful, or used as an ecological indicator, were reviewed because these attributes are of particular interest to society. Whereas traits are an enduring characteristic of a species and/or population, a species status may vary geographically and over time. Criteria for selecting traits were that they could be applied to most taxa, were easily available, and their inclusion would result in new research and/or management applications. Numerical traits were favoured over categorical. Habitat was excluded as it can be derived from a selection of these traits. Ten traits were prioritized for inclusion in the most comprehensive open access database on marine species (World Register of Marine Species), namely taxonomic classification, environment, geography, depth, substratum, mobility, skeleton, diet, body size and reproduction. These traits and statuses are being added to the database and new use cases may further subdivide and expand upon them.

RCN4GSC Workshop Report: Modeling a Testbed for Managing Data at the Interface of Biodiversity and (Meta)Genomics, April 2011.

At the GSC11 meeting (4-6 April 2011, Hinxton, England, the GSC's genomic biodiversity working group (GBWG) developed an initial model for a data management testbed at the interface of biodiversity with genomics and metagenomics. With representatives of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) participating, it was agreed that the most useful course of action would be for GBIF to collaborate with the GSC in its ongoing GBWG workshops to achieve common goals around interoperability/data integration across (meta)-genomic and species level data. It was determined that a quick comparison should be made of the contents of the Darwin Core (DwC) and the GSC data checklists, with a goal of determining their degree of overlap and compatibility. An ad-hoc task group lead by Renzo Kottman and Peter Dawyndt undertook an initial comparison between the Darwin Core (DwC) standard used by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the MIxS checklists put forward by the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC). A term-by-term comparison showed that DwC and GSC concepts complement each other far more than they compete with each other. Because the preliminary analysis done at this meeting was based on expertise with GSC standards, but not with DwC standards, the group recommended that a joint meeting of DwC and GSC experts be convened as soon as possible to continue this joint assessment and to propose additional work going forward.

RCN4GSC Workshop Report: Managing Data at the Interface of Biodiversity and (Meta)Genomics, March 2011.

Building on the planning efforts of the RCN4GSC project, a workshop was convened in San Diego to bring together experts from genomics and metagenomics, biodiversity, ecology, and bioinformatics with the charge to identify potential for positive interactions and progress, especially building on successes at establishing data standards by the GSC and by the biodiversity and ecological communities. Until recently, the contribution of microbial life to the biomass and biodiversity of the biosphere was largely overlooked (because it was resistant to systematic study). Now, emerging genomic and metagenomic tools are making investigation possible. Initial research findings suggest that major advances are in the offing. Although different research communities share some overlapping concepts and traditions, they differ significantly in sampling approaches, vocabularies and workflows. Likewise, their definitions of 'fitness for use' for data differ significantly, as this concept stems from the specific research questions of most importance in the different fields. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that there is much to be gained from greater coordination and integration. As a first step toward interoperability of the information systems used by the different communities, participants agreed to conduct a case study on two of the leading data standards from the two formerly disparate fields: (a) GSC's standard checklists for genomics and metagenomics and (b) TDWG's Darwin Core standard, used primarily in taxonomy and systematic biology.

Meeting Report: Hackathon-Workshop on Darwin Core and MIxS Standards Alignment (February 2012).

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the Genomic Standards Consortium convened a joint workshop at the University of Oxford, 27-29 February 2012, with a small group of experts from Europe, USA, China and Japan, to continue the alignment of the Darwin Core with the MIxS and related genomics standards. Several reference mappings were produced as well as test expressions of MIxS in RDF. The use and management of controlled vocabulary terms was considered in relation to both GBIF and the GSC, and tools for working with terms were reviewed. Extensions for publishing genomic biodiversity data to the GBIF network via a Darwin Core Archive were prototyped and work begun on preparing translations of the Darwin Core to Japanese and Chinese. Five genomic repositories were identified for engagement to begin the process of testing the publishing of genomic data to the GBIF network commencing with the SILVA rRNA database.

RCN4GSC Meeting Report: Initiating a Testbed for Managing Data at the Interface of Biodiversity and Genomics/Metagenomics, May 2011.

Following up on efforts from two earlier workshops, a meeting was convened in San Diego to (a) establish working connections between experts in the use of the Darwin Core and the GSC MIxS standards, (b) conduct mutual briefings to promote knowledge exchange and to increase the understanding of the two communities' approaches, constraints, community goals, subtleties, etc., (c) perform an element-by-element comparison of the two standards, assessing the compatibility and complementarity of the two approaches, (d) propose and consider possible use cases and test beds in which a joint annotation approach might be tried, to useful scientific effect, and (e) propose additional action items necessary to continue the development of this joint effort. Several focused working teams were identified to continue the work after the meeting ended.