4.4 Article

Five task clusters that enable efficient and effective digitization of biological collections

Journal

ZOOKEYS
Volume -, Issue 209, Pages 19-45

Publisher

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.209.3135

Keywords

Biological specimen collections; paleontological specimen collections; biodiversity informatics; workflow; digitization; curation; imaging; task cluster; iDigBio; ADBC

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation's Advancing Digitization of Biological Collections Program [EF1115210]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences [1115210] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes and illustrates five major clusters of related tasks (herein referred to as task clusters) that are common to efficient and effective practices in the digitization of biological specimen data and media. Examples of these clusters come from the observation of diverse digitization processes. The staff of iDigBio (The U.S. National Science Foundation's National Resource for Advancing Digitization of Biological Collections) visited active biological and paleontological collections digitization programs for the purpose of documenting and assessing current digitization practices and tools. These observations identified five task clusters that comprise the digitization process leading up to data publication: (1) pre-digitization curation and staging, (2) specimen image capture, (3) specimen image processing, (4) electronic data capture, and (5) georeferencing locality descriptions. While not all institutions are completing each of these task clusters for each specimen, these clusters describe a composite picture of digitization of biological and paleontological specimens across the programs that were observed. We describe these clusters, three workflow patterns that dominate the implemention of these clusters, and offer a set of workflow recommendations for digitization programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available