U23A-02
If an antelope is a document, then a rock is data: preserving earth science samples for the future
Abstract:
As discussed in seminal works by Briet (1951) and Buckland (1998), physical objects can be considered documents when given specific context. In the case of an antelope, in the wild it's an animal, in a zoo it's a document. It is the primary source of information, specifically when it is made an object of study.When discussing earth science data, we may think about numbers in a spreadsheet or verbal descriptions of a rock. But what about physical materials such as cores, cuttings, fossils, and other tangible objects? The most recent version of the American Geophysical Union’s data position statement states data preservation and management policies should apply to both “digital data and physical objects”[1]. If an antelope is a document, than isn’t a rock a form of data?
Like books in a library or items in a museum, these objects require surrogates (digital or analog) that allow researchers to access and retrieve them. Once these scientific objects are acquired, researchers can process the information they contain. Unlike books, and some museum materials, most earth science objects cannot yet be completely replaced by digital surrogates. A fossil may be scanned, but the original is needed for chemical testing and ultimately for ‘not yet developed’ processes of scientific analysis.
These objects along with their metadata or other documentation become scientific data when they are used in research. Without documentation of key information (i.e. the location where it was collected) these objects may lose their scientific value. This creates a complex situation where we must preserve the object, its metadata, and the connection between them. These factors are important as we consider the future of earth science data, our definitions of what constitutes scientific data, as well as our data preservation and management practices.
This talk will discuss current initiatives within the earth science communities (EarthCube’s EC3 and iSamples; USGS’s data preservation program; etc.) and within the communities of information science. As practitioners, these librarians, information scientists, and archivists work on similar issues and can offer practices and theories that might help us ‘future proof’ physical earth science records.
[1] http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/draft-data-position-statement-comment