Wikidata talk:WikiProject Research expeditions

Inviting participants of TDWG to contact us.

Please add your comments or contact details to this discussion page if you wish to contact the participants about this project or discuss the project further. Ambrosia10 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

How to connect a discovered species to a research expedition?

@AnnikaHendriksen is wondering how we could connect a discovered/named species to a specific research expedition. Any ideas? Using significant event (P793) ? Via literature / sources (items for publications about the discovery / naming of the species)? Examples and ideas welcome. Spinster 💬 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Spinster indeed was wondering 1) which property to use to mention the expedition in the item of the scholarly article in which the new species is described , 2) which property to use to mention the expedition in the item of the species itself that is described after a specimen that is collected during a specific expedition.

For example I described the Kyoto Botanical Expedition to Sumatra Q124315857 partly based on an article Q43194253 which describes the species Q15461629. AnnikaHendriksen (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had a think about this and I'm of the opinion that this comes down to the linking between items. So using the example the Kyoto Botanical Expedition to Sumatra Q124315857, this expedition item is linked to the article item Q43194253 by the described by source (P1343). The article Q43194253 item can also have a statement on it that links to the expedition item ie main subject (P921) as this the "main subject" property also relates to key words for the publication and the article gives information about the expedition. So I would argue the expedition is an appropriate key word for this paper. For the species item Q15461629, I would then link that to the article by using the article as a reference to support the taxon name statement using the stated in (P248) as well as reference has role (P6184) with the statement "first valid description" Q1361864. For more information on this latter part of linking see Rod Page's advice here. I think it is also possible to add a significant event (P793) statement to the original species item linking the species to the Expedition item. My reasoning for this is that the species description is based on the holotype or types collected during the expedition so I would regard the expedition as a significant event for that species concept item. I think you could use either the holotype specimen collected on the expedition to give the point in time date and use the url or doi etc for the holotype specimen as the reference supporting this statement or alternatively use the first description article for the citation. I hope this makes sense! Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10@Spinster

@Spinster@Ambrosia10

That does make sense, and corresponds to my idea, fully agree with your proposal Ambrosia10! And thanks for the suggestion of using reference has role (P6184) and Q "first valid decription" ! Didn't know it existed.

• so from the item of the species named after a specimen found during an expedition we can use significant event (P793) to link to that expedition item ;
• or should we link via an item in between: the type-specimen that was collected during this expedition where the new species is based upon. Any ideas?
• from the species we can link to the article written about it with stated in stated in (P248)

Is it in your opinion desirable to link also from the item of the expedition directly to the species item, in the above situation? And what would be the way to do so in your opinion? (somewhat like the reverse of the significant event (P793) added tot the species item to add the item of the expedition there) AnnikaHendriksen (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Annika and Spinster, no I don't think it is necessary to add the species directly to the expedition item. If folk wanted to know all the species described from specimens collected during the expedition a Wikidata query can provide this information. A query could be written asking Wikidata to show all species items with a significant event statement linking to a particular research expedition. Of course this is assuming this information has been added to Wikidata! Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

items collected during a military expedition

While the goal of a military expedition, for example the Ashanti Expedition Q124316258, is usually not primarly collecting specimen, (as stated in the article added as a source there) I was wondering how to model the relations between the expedition and these collected specimen that were a mere 'by product' than the original goal of the expedition? While some of these collected specimen eventually may become type specimen for certain species later in time.

• Off course we can use collection items at (P11146) but for me somehow this seems a bit curious.
• I am reluctant to state a military expedition where also multiple specimen were collected as an instance of (instance of (P31)) a Research expedition (Q366301).

Please share your thoughts in this.

• And is a military expedition in the case of the Shanti expedition a subclass of Anglo Ashanti Wars : Anglo-Ashanti Wars
• And has anyone ideas how to model this? 1) how to state the collecting history of the specimen gathered during a military expedition? and 2) how to link the expedition in this case to for example species based on type-specimens gathered during such a military expedition? AnnikaHendriksen
• and should an article about the collected items (or found species) here be added to the expedition item as a described by source? While the article is not about the the military event at all, but about these 'by products', the collected specimens? (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I understand how uncomfortable it can be to also call a military expedition a research expedition. In my view I would consider whether there is a secondary source that that can support that statement ie "instance of" "research expedition". Often what to call these types of expeditions can come down to a value judgement and of course in such cases its important to think about how others might view the statements you are making on the item. Having a source you can cite to support statements helps in these cases. In my view if the military expedition has a secondary purpose of collecting specimens, and this can be supported by a publication, I would have no issue with making an "instance of" "research expedition" statement. However if the military expedition had participants who only collected just because they could, I wouldn't make that extra "instance of" statement.

• As regards making "collection items at" statements on a purely military expedition items, I don't know whether this is appropriate. I can see an argument in favour of making "collection items at" statements on a purely military expedition item - such as folk wanting to know where all collected or looted items obtained during the military expedition might currently be held. I do think there is a difference between people collecting specimens while they just happened to be on a military expedition and a military expedition that had a secondary purpose of collecting specimens - for example an expedition that deliberately took botanists or naturalists who were employed either by the military powers or with their permission to do this work as apposed to a soldier who was also interested in botany and botanised in his/her leisure time. I haven't see anyone model this but I think it would be useful if our documentation provided guidance on these types of examples.
• So, if we are talking about a purely military expedition where a participant soldier just happened to collect a specimen that ended up to be a type specimen of a species, I wouldn't make any statements on the military expedition item (other than possibly a "collection items at" statement, if there are supporting references for this).
• What I would do is add a statement on the species item to say "significant event" "the particularly military expedition associated with the collecting event" because that is the event happening when the type specimen was collected. I would qualify that statement with the date the type specimen was collected and use the species first description paper and/or the holotype specimen link as the supporting reference (assuming these sources state the specimen was collected during the military expedition).
• I would also make sure the collector of the specimen is in Wikidata and has a statement on his or her item, that they were a participant in the military expedition.
• I would add the article about the collected items or described species to the expedition item as a "described by source" only if it actually discusses the military expedition. Otherwise I would do as we've already discussed and add the original description publication to the species taxon item as a supporting reference for the species statement. If there is another type of publication discussing the military expedition and the species that publication could be added to the species taxon item as a "described by source" publication. If the publication discussed the military expedition or uses it as a key word I would add also add a "main subject" statement to the publication item linking it to the military campaign.

Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10 Thank you very much for your toughts again!

• instance of - For this specific example of Ashanti expedition I added both as instance of but added the qualifier 'applies to part' although I had some doubts about the value ('botanical collector'), and with a reference to the list of collected specimens.
• Indeed I would not use the statement ' research expedition' for privately collected specimens or other objects by a single member of a military expedition.
• indeed the collector of the specimens is an item itself ideally, and preferably you can add a role by " object has role". Question to(@Ambrosia10 Object or subject here depends on the statement, is it not?

See for example participant Henry Alfred Cummins at the Ashanti Expedition Q124316258. AHendriksen-collecties (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes - whether it is "object has role" or "subject has role" will depend on the type of statement being made in the Wikidata item. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Data Modelling issue: Relation Program and expeditions

Please share your thoughts on how to model the relation between an Program and the underlying expeditions on the one hand, and on the other hand to the modelling of the relations between the consecutive expeditions each, as @Ambrosia10 pointed out: "one approach would be to use the Wikidata item “research expedition series” Q122861378. This Wikidata item can then be used in “instance of” statements for any overarching item for a series of research expeditions. See these items as examples https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6054238 (International Weddell Sea Oceanographic Expeditions) and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q112713303  (Yale Peruvian Expeditions)." But how to relate the parts to the overarching project? With the properties P361 part of and P527 has part(s)] See for example CANCAP-VI AnnikaHendriksen (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10 and all interested in modelling this: Also the property P11146 "collection items at" gives a constraint with a program when used in "research expedition series" (Q122861378) , should the Property talk of P11146 be updated, or is there another way to solve this? AnnikaHendriksen (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Annika, I had always assumed (but am happy to discuss this) that each "collection items at" statement would be placed on the individual expedition item that is part of the expedition series. However for multiple year/decade series I can see that this may be quite a complex task or even impossible to create an expedition item for each event in the series. Therefore it may be that the modelling group will decide to compromise and agree to place "collection items at" statements on the series items as well. Personally I am leaning towards keeping the constraint as I would like to encourage folk adding data to Wikidata to concentrate on research expedition items rather than link everything via an overarching series item but of course it will depend on what the community decides. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Data Modelling issue: Vessel or Uses

A lot of expeditions make use of vessels etc.: do we add a P1876 'vessel' as a property in itself to expedition, likewise the way we add participants, or is it more correct to say the expedition uses (P2283, 'uses') a vessel? Imo, when this specific vessel is no item in itself but the type of vessel is, then 'uses' sounds more to the point. See for example both options in CANCAP-IV. AnnikaHendriksen (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Annika, I tend to create a Wikidata item for the vessel and then use P1876 item. I prefer this as it gives more context and data about the collecting and adds history about the vessel. Adding vessel items links the expedition to the data about the vessel thus giving more information on the ability of the ship to collect specimens. For example an ex minesweeper will be constrained by its ability to collect certain specimens due to the original purpose of the vessel in comparison to a custom designed research vessel made for the purposes of scientific collecting. By requiring editors to create items for vessels it helps give more information and context about the expedition itself and even the itinerary of that expedition. For example if a ship is ice strengthened and this data is added to its item, it will explain why the vessel was so frequently used to undertake research expeditions in Antarctica. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)