I hesitate to write this, because I'm a bit late to the party, and I don't want this to come across as disrepectful to the work that everyone has put in so far.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through HISPID 6.0, and am making lots of notes and queries (in a printed copy) about how definitions could be tweaked or how usage notes might be clarified to make them more useful for your average (or perhaps your less-experienced-than-average user). Somewhere in the Media Item class (which I understand is mostly from Audubon Core, and not brilliantly formulated, in my view), I started to wonder whether it's a good idea to be messing around with definitions of terms that are taken from other standards.
I think what we should aim for with HISPID is to provide enough interpretive information and usage notes so that a more naive user (e.g. MAHC members, or people setting up their collections management system and hoping to deliver to AVH) can get past the somewhat intimidating terminology and actually understand what the terms mean in relation to their collections, and gain confidence in using them.
To achieve this, I think that (for non HISPID-specific terms) it's better to leave the definitions as they are in Darwin Core and Audubon Core, and focus on explaining how these terms are implemented in our HISPID world. So HISPID would represent more of a well-considered, experienced use case scenario, rather than a redefinition or terms that exist in other standards.
I really think this would be more useful for audiences like university herbaria and regional herbaria. Otherwise I think we risk producing a document that is still seen as a bit too technical and intimidating for some of our key users.
I hesitate to write this, because I'm a bit late to the party, and I don't want this to come across as disrepectful to the work that everyone has put in so far.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through HISPID 6.0, and am making lots of notes and queries (in a printed copy) about how definitions could be tweaked or how usage notes might be clarified to make them more useful for your average (or perhaps your less-experienced-than-average user). Somewhere in the Media Item class (which I understand is mostly from Audubon Core, and not brilliantly formulated, in my view), I started to wonder whether it's a good idea to be messing around with definitions of terms that are taken from other standards.
I think what we should aim for with HISPID is to provide enough interpretive information and usage notes so that a more naive user (e.g. MAHC members, or people setting up their collections management system and hoping to deliver to AVH) can get past the somewhat intimidating terminology and actually understand what the terms mean in relation to their collections, and gain confidence in using them.
To achieve this, I think that (for non HISPID-specific terms) it's better to leave the definitions as they are in Darwin Core and Audubon Core, and focus on explaining how these terms are implemented in our HISPID world. So HISPID would represent more of a well-considered, experienced use case scenario, rather than a redefinition or terms that exist in other standards.
I really think this would be more useful for audiences like university herbaria and regional herbaria. Otherwise I think we risk producing a document that is still seen as a bit too technical and intimidating for some of our key users.