resourceCollected
zedomel opened this issue · comments
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| GUID | |
| Rebipp Class | rebipp:Interaction |
| Label | resourceCollected |
| Definition | A list (concatenated and separated) of floral resources used or removed by an animal from a flower during an Interaction. |
| Comments | Recommended best practice is to separate the values in a list with space vertical bar space ( ` |
| Examples | pollen, pollen | nectar | oil, ovules |
| Controlled vocabulary | |
| Darwin Core Class | Event |
| Cardinality | One to one |
| Reference Protocol |
Maybe it should match the "reward" term??
I agree with the definition "A list (concatenated and separated) of floral resources used or removed by an animal from a flower during an Interaction."
@fonturbel for while this term differs from floralReward #43 by which the floralReward is a term to specify all rewards offered by a plant species to visitors (which may or may not include the resource being collected here). On other hand, the term resourceCollected is specific to a particular interaction (it requires an observation of the visitor collecting the resource).
I'm just wondering, if all collected resources are also rewards and also if all rewards are possibly resources to be collected. If so, then the term floralReward may be removed from the standard in favor of simplicity. Since, the rewards can be inferred by aggregating all the interactions data which specify a value for the term collectedResource.
Otherwise, same as for #42 and #8 , if we want to be able to capture literature data, that is not related with the a particular interaction, animal or plant occurrences, then we need separate term for that as we have now. But, doing that I feel that we are mixing things, and also adopting the wrong base standard (Darwin Core is based on Occurrence not Taxon)!
I need more discussions about it. Maybe having a virtual meeting to discuss these issues.
The use of the term Reward to designate the resources collected by floral visitors and pollinators is controverse, while the use of the more general term, Resource, is less controverse as it does not imply in assuming and intentionality to both plants and pollinators.
Thus, I agree that this term should be merged to the floralReward term, with a definition slightly different of both current definitions: "A list (concatenated and separated) of floral resources collected an animal visitor or pollinator from a flower during an Interaction."
Additionally, it is important to have in mind which term related to the Animal would differentiate it into pollinator or non-pollinating floral visitor.
@zedomel People use resource and reward interchangeably. I agree with @cepnunes that resource is less controversial.
I would say that in most cases aggregating the interactions will indeed end in a list of all resources offered by a flower (which is the point to remove the floralReward term). My only concern goes to cases on which no resources are offered (deceptive species)
@pjbergamo so we should have a way to document that no resources were collected by a visitor? Maybe the controlled vocab of this term should include none or something similar?
@zedomel This may be a solution. Maybe the controlled vocab should be very precise, something as: "no resources offered (deceptive pollination)".
I suggest including resin in the examples. It is necessary to exclude ovules (this is not a resource offered). In "pollen | nectar | oil", I suggest excluding oil, because oil flowers do not offer nectar.
I think it is more appropriate to focus on resources and not rewards, so we avoid misunderstandings as well. I liked @pjbergamo's last suggestion to solve the problem.
flowerReward will be removed in favor of this term.