Improving the Adoption and Evolution of Data Standards for Fossil Specimens

As we atomize and expand the digital representation of specimen information through data standards, it is critical to evaluate the implementation of these developments, including how well they serve discipline-specific needs. In particular, fossil specimens often present challenges because they require information to be captured that is seemingly parallel to, but not entirely aligned with, that of their extant counterparts. Previous work to evaluate data sharing practices of paleontology collections has shown an imbalance in the use of Darwin Core (DwC) (Wieczorek et al. 2012) terms and many instances of underutilized terms (Little 2018). To expand upon that broad assessment and encourage better adoption of evolving standards and data practices by fossil collections, a more in-depth review of term usage is necessary. Here we review specific DwC terms that are underutilized or that present challenges for fossil occurrence records, and we examine the subsequent impact on data discovery of paleo specimens. We conclude by sharing options for improving standards implementation within a paleo context. We see key patterns and challenges in current implementation of DwC in paleo collections, as evidenced by evaluations of the typical mappings found in occurrence records for fossil specimens, data flags applied by aggregators, and discussions within the paleo collections community. These can be organized into three broad groupings. Group 1: Some DwC terms (or classes of terms) are clear to implement, but are underutilized due to issues that are also found within the neontological community. Example: Location. In the case of terms related to the Location class, paleontology has a need for a way to deal with sensitive locality information. The sensitivity here typically relates to laws restricting the sharing of locality information to protect fossil sites versus neontological requirements to protect threatened, rare, or endangered species. The end goal of needing to fuzz locality information without completely making the specimen record undiscoverable or unusable is the same. There is a need for better education at the paleo data provider-level related to standards for recording and sharing information in this category, which could be based on existing neontological community standards. Group 2: A second group of DwC terms often seem clear to implement, but the terminology used to describe and define them might be unfamiliar to paleontologists or read as unnecessary