Building on centuries of research based on herbarium specimens gathered through time and around the globe, a new era of discovery, synthesis, and prediction using digitized collections data has begun. This paper provides an overview of how aggregated, open access botanical and associated biological, environmental, and ecological data sets, from genes to the ecosystem, can be used to document the impacts of global change on communities, organisms, and society; predict future impacts; and help to drive the remediation of change. Advocacy for botanical collections and their expansion is needed, including ongoing digitization and online publishing. The addition of non‐traditional digitized data fields, user annotation capability, and born‐digital field data collection enables the rapid access of rich, digitally available data sets for research, education, informed decision‐making, and other scholarly and creative activities. Researchers are receiving enormous benefits from data aggregators including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA), and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), but effective collaboration around data infrastructures is needed when working with large and disparate data sets. Tools for data discovery, visualization, analysis, and skills training are increasingly important for inspiring novel research that improves the intrinsic value of physical and digital botanical collections.

To improve the suitability of the Darwin Core standard for the research and management of alien species, the standard needs to express the native status of organisms, how well established they are and how they came to occupy a location. To facilitate this, we propose: 1. To adopt a controlled vocabulary for the existing Darwin Core term dwc:establishmentMeans 2. To elevate the pathway term from the Invasive Species Pathways extension to become a new Darwin Core term dwc:pathway maintained as part of the Darwin Core standard 3. To adopt a new Darwin Core term dwc:degreeOfEstablishment with an associated controlled vocabulary These changes to the standard will allow users to clearly state whether an occurrence of a species is native to a location or not, how it got there (pathway), and to what extent the species has become a permanent feature of the location. By improving Darwin Core for capturing and sharing these data, we aim to improve the quality of occurrence and checklist data in general and to increase the number of potential uses of these data.

The increasing availability of digitized biodiversity data worldwide, provided by an increasing number of institutions and researchers, and the growing use of those data for a variety of purposes have raised concerns related to the "fitness for use" of such data and the impact of data quality (DQ) on the outcomes of analyses, reports, and decisions. A consistent approach to assess and manage data quality is currently critical for biodiversity data users. However, achieving this goal has been particularly challenging because of idiosyncrasies inherent in the concept of quality. DQ assessment and management cannot be performed if we have not clearly established the quality needs from a data user’s standpoint. This paper defines a formal conceptual framework to support the biodiversity informatics community allowing for the description of the meaning of "fitness for use" from a data user’s perspective in a common and standardized manner. This proposed framework defines nine concepts organized into three classes: DQ Needs, DQ Solutions and DQ Report. The framework is intended to formalize human thinking into well-defined components to make it possible to share and reuse concepts of DQ needs, solutions and reports in a common way among user communities. With this framework, we establish a common ground for the collaborative development of solutions for DQ assessment and management based on data fitness for use principles. To validate the framework, we present a proof of concept based on a case study at the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University. In future work, we will use the framework to engage the biodiversity informatics community to formalize and share DQ profiles related to DQ needs across the community.

No abstract

To understand biological and geological events and the history of collected samples, it is essential to determine and communicate location information accurately. The accuracy of a georeference depends upon the circumstances of the event. Historical collections depend on having clear verbatim locality descriptions, the correct interpretation of data written on labels, and on the availability of gazetteers and maps of suitable scale and time. Observation and tracking data localities depend on GPS (Global Positiioning System) accuracy, and on presence or absence of nearby obstructions such as buildings, forest cover, cliffs, etc. Marine data depend on the accurate determination of the surface location and the techniques to position a dive event from that location and to determine its depth and extent. Many people are using smartphones or maps such as Google Earth and Google Maps to determine their georeferences – but are they suitable and accurate enough to determine locations and elevations? New editions of the Georeferencing Best Practices (Chapman and Wieczorek 2020), the Georeferencing Quick Reference Guide (Zermoglio et al. 2020), and the Georeferencing Calculator Manual (Bloom et al. 2020), were published earlier this year and address all the issues listed above and many more. These documents were based on earlier versions but have been updated and improved considerably – adding information for marine biomes, caves, lithographic stratifications, transects, and the use of elevation, as well as including many more illustrations and examples. The expansion of an extensive georeferencing glossary adds to consistency in the use of terms The trio of documents now provides consistent guidance about how to georeference diverse locality types and detailed instructions on how to calculate uncertainty using many different coordinate reference systems and datums (horizontal and vertical) along with the importance of recording this information. Finally, they provide guidance on how to set up a georeferencing project and how to relate the results to the Darwin Core Standard (Darwin Core Task Group 2009). For the last decade, Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) has been one of the preferred standards for sharing biodiversity data, including associated location information. Darwin Core currently has 44 terms in its Location class, allowing sharing from administrative divisions, to elevations and depths, coordinates in different formats, and georeference metadata, among others. Although Darwin Core provides definitions for each of its terms, their correct use is sometimes poorly understood, resulting in information being captured incorrectly, or not captured, documented or shared at all. We will re-introduce these documents, discuss their content, importance, and differences from previously published versions. The newly revised documents provide guidance on capturing and documenting georeferences, clarifying the georeferencing process and showing how to capture information using Darwin Core appropriately. They will improve the location data associated with biological events and our understanding of these events.