Search

The utopian vision is of a future where a digital representation of each object in our collections is accessible through the internet and sustainably linked to other digital resources. This is a long term goal however, and in the meantime there is an urgent need to share data about our collections at a higher level with a range of stakeholders (Woodburn et al. 2020). To sustainably achieve this, and to aggregate this information across all natural science collections, the data need to be standardised (Johnston and Robinson 2002). To this end, the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Collection Descriptions (CD) Interest Group has developed a data standard for describing collections, which is approaching formal review for ratification as a new TDWG standard. It proposes 20 classes (Suppl. material 1) and over 100 properties that can be used to describe, categorise, quantify, link and track digital representations of natural science collections, from high-level approximations to detailed breakdowns depending on the purpose of a particular implementation. The wide range of use cases identified for representing collection description data means that a flexible approach to the standard and the underlying modelling concepts is essential. These are centered around the ‘ObjectGroup’ (Fig. 1), a class that may represent any group (of any size) of physical collection objects, which have one or more common characteristics. This generic definition of the ‘collection’ in ‘collection descriptions’ is an important factor in making the standard flexible enough to support the breadth of use cases. For any use case or implementation, only a subset of classes and properties within the standard are likely to be relevant. In some cases, this subset may have little overlap with those selected for other use cases. This additional need for flexibility means that very few classes and properties, representing the core concepts, are proposed to be mandatory. Metrics, facts and narratives are represented in a normalised structure using an extended MeasurementOrFact class, so that these can be user-defined rather than constrained to a set identified by the standard. Finally, rather than a rigid underlying data model as part of the normative standard, documentation will be developed to provide guidance on how the classes in the standard may be related and quantified according to relational, dimensional and graph-like models. So, in summary, the standard has, by design, been made flexible enough to be used in a number of different ways. The corresponding risk is that it could be used in ways that may not deliver what is needed in terms of outputs, manageability and interoperability with other resources of collection-level or object-level data. To mitigate this, it is key for any new implementer of the standard to establish how it should be used in that particular instance, and define any necessary constraints within the wider scope of the standard and model. This is the concept of the ‘collection description scheme,’ a profile that defines elements such as: which classes and properties should be included, which should be mandatory, and which should be repeatable; which controlled vocabularies and hierarchies should be used to make the data interoperable; how the collections should be broken down into individual ObjectGroups and interlinked, and how the various classes should be related to each other. which classes and properties should be included, which should be mandatory, and which should be repeatable; which controlled vocabularies and hierarchies should be used to make the data interoperable; how the collections should be broken down into individual ObjectGroups and interlinked, and how the various classes should be related to each other. Various factors might influence these decisions, including the types of information that are relevant to the use case, whether quantitative metrics need to be captured and aggregated across collection descriptions, and how many resources can be dedicated to amassing and maintaining the data. This process has particular relevance to the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) consortium, the design of which incorporates use cases for storing, interlinking and reporting on the collections of its member institutions. These include helping users of the European Loans and Visits System (ELViS) (Islam 2020) to discover specimens for physical and digital loans by providing descriptions and breakdowns of the collections of holding institutions, and monitoring digitisation progress across European collections through a dynamic Collections Digitisation Dashboard. In addition, DiSSCo will be part of a global collections data ecosystem requiring interoperation with other infrastructures such as the GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) Registry of Scientific Collections, the CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities) Registry of Collections and Index Herbariorum. In this presentation, we will introduce the draft standard and discuss the process of defining new collection description schemes using the standard and data model, and focus on DiSSCo requirements as examples of real-world collection descriptions use cases.

Many institutions harbor living collections in the form of living plants, animals, microrganisms or seeds. In the framework of the TDWG collections and specimen descriptions standards, it has become important to align exisiting standards for living collections and specimens or to identify where concepts or controlled vocabularies would be needed in the current TDWG standards. In September 2021 a workshop was organized in the framework of the COST Action Mobilise (https://www.mobilise-action.eu/) to get a better common understanding of the different types of living collections to consider and set the scene for further work on standards alignments. The EU COST Action CA17106 on “Mobilising Data, Experts and Policies in Scientific Collections”. Invited experts to these workshop were representatives of the TDWG Collection Description Group, the GGBN and TDWG molecular collections group, living plants collections and seed banks (Botanic Gardens Conservation International: BGCI, https://www.bgci.org/), living animal and biobanks (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria: EAZA, https://www.eaza.net/) and the culture collections (World Federation for Culture Collections: WFCC, http://www.wfcc.info/), who gave presentations on their currently used standards and challenges. The second day was devoted to break out sessions to brainstorm the specific needs for the different living collections with the aim to check and update the controlled vocabularies and concepts as needed. Identified topics were : Session 1: Voucher specimens of living accessions. Session 2: Living collections and GBIF. Session 3: How do we compare botanical gardens with herbaria? Session 4: How do we compare zoos and aquaria with natural history collections? Session 5: Culture collections: best practices and guidelines. Session 1: Voucher specimens of living accessions. Session 2: Living collections and GBIF. Session 3: How do we compare botanical gardens with herbaria? Session 4: How do we compare zoos and aquaria with natural history collections? Session 5: Culture collections: best practices and guidelines. The goal of this presentation is to address the outcome of these sessions and recommend future steps in collaboration with TDWG and the different identified stakeholders.

For the last 15 years, Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) has recognized two competing standards for organism occurrence data, ABCD (Access to Biological Collections Data; Holetschek et al. 2012) and DarwinCore (Wieczorek et al. 2012). These two representations emerged from contrasting strategies for mobilizing information about organism occurrences (also commonly called species occurrence data). ABCD was capable of representing details of more kinds of information, but was necessarily more complicated. DarwinCore, on the other hand, was simpler but more limited in its ability to represent data of different kinds and formats. TDWG endorsed both standards because the different projects and communities that generated them remained dedicated to their different strategies and tool sets, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) developed the ability to integrate data published in either standard. Since their inceptions, DarwinCore and ABCD have become more similar. DarwinCore has gotten more complicated through the addition of terms and has begun to assign terms to classes. ABCD is now expressed in RDF (Resource Description Framework), potentially enabling re-use of terms with alternative structures among classes. At the same time, methodologies for conceptual modeling and representing complex scientific data have continued to evolve. In particular, a suite of modeling and data representation methods related to linked data and the semantic web, i.e., RDF, SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System), and OWL (web Ontology Language), promise to make it easier for us to reconcile shared concepts among different representations or schemas. A mapping between ABCD 2.1 and DarwinCore has existed since before 2005.*1 ABCD 3.0 and DarwinCore are both now represented in RDF. In addition, the BioCollections Ontology (BCO) covers many of the shared concepts and is derived from the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), an upper level ontology that has oriented many other biomedical ontologies. Reconciling ABCD and DarwinCore through alignment with BCO (in the OBO Foundry; Smith et al. 2007) would better connect TDWG standards to other domains in biology. We appreciate that many working scientists and data managers perceive ontologies as overly complicated. To mitigate the steep learning curve associated with ontologies, we expect to create simpler application profiles or schemas to guide and serve narrower communities of practice within the wider biodiversity domain. We also plan to integrate the current work of the Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group and thereby eliminate the redundancy between DarwinCore and Taxonomic Concepts Transfer Schema (TCS; Kennedy et al. 2006). At the time of this writing, we have only agreements from the authors (i.e., conveners of relevant TDWG Interest Groups and other key stakeholders) to collaborate in pursuit of these common goals. In this presentation we will give a more detailed description of our objectives and products, the methods we are using to achieve them, and our progress to date.

Genomic science is revolutionizing and accelerating biodiversity research. For collections-based institutions to continue to lead and support biodiversity research, they must adapt to this new reality. Simultaneously, “big data” is accumulating so rapidly that we have unprecedented capacity to plan strategically to use genomics to advance basic and applied science on multiple fronts. For example, seven “big data” sources have the following numbers of records (2018 data): Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), ~1B; Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), ~3.6M; National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), ~220M; Open Tree of Life (OToL), 1.9M; Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD), ~6.3M; Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), ~99K; Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN), ~2M. Collectively, they offer more than 1.2B records on biodiversity. At the scale of species (~2M described, multiple millions undescribed), these data are still too sparse to permit comprehensive conclusions. At the scale of families (i.e. deeper clades of life), the situation is far more promising: about 9,911 families are known, and relatively few are discovered each year. This suggests that at the family rank (and above), our knowledge of life on Earth is reasonably complete. Approximately 160,000 valid and accepted genera exist, but certainly many new genera await discovery and description. Genomics is the fastest way to group species into more inclusive lineages such as genera and families, and is certainly faster than traditional alpha taxonomy. Synergistically, these “big data” answer four important questions at deeper clade levels: What is it? Where is it? What do we know about it? What do we know about its genome? Approximately 4,500 eukaryotic genomes have been sequenced. The converse of what we know is what we do not know, another meaning of “dark taxa.” We can use the distribution and density of big data at deeper clade levels (families, genera) to quantitatively analyze “dark taxa” and therefore to strategically optimize knowledge and preservation of biodiversity at a global scale. Technicalities of the quantitative prioritization scheme are debatable, but some initial, simple scoring systems can help to prioritize lineages for collection and genetic research so as to most efficiently illuminate regions in the tree of life that that are neither preserved, imaged, geo-located, studied, nor known genomically. This analysis presents criteria and goals for collaborating to build a global genomic collection to maximize efficient acquisition of biodiversity genomic knowledge, and identifies the most valuable and highest priority taxa for genomic research.

GGBN, the Global Genome Biodiversity Network, is a consortium of virtually linked biodiversity biobanks that provide unified open access to their sample data through a web portal (www.ggbn.org), together improve best practices and develop standards. Since its inception in 2011, GGBN has largely been supported by external grants and in-kind support from its members. Starting with representatives from thirteen organizations across Africa, Australia, Europe, North, Central, and South America, preliminary plans for an international coordinating mechanism for biodiversity biobanks was developed. In 2013, an interim executive committee was established and an MOU (memorandum of understanding) was distributed to 17 potential collaborators for signature. Subsequently a governance and business model were developed based on input from across the collections and research communities. As the network grew, the interim executive committee solicited letters of intent to transition GGBN into a formal member-driven organization. In 2016 with 12 biodiversity collections online through GGBN’s data portal, the organization was launched and the business model implemented. This included a general and a technical secretariat, an executive committee and general assembly of its, at that time, 41 members. Having grown to encompass 87 general assembly members and 22 collections online in two years, GGBN is assessing its current business model, with focus on increasing revenue, and marketing strategy. Results of this assessment and associated next steps for GGBN are presented and discussed.

Transparency as well as complete and traceable documentation of specimens, samples and associated information are prerequisites to comply with laws and regulations in Provider and User Countries to ensure benefits of utilised genetic resources are shared. Besides legal compliance, these measures should also help to build trust among users, suppliers and collaborators. This concerns for example laws of providing countries that have established access laws under the Nagoya Protocol, such as Mexico's Ley General de la Vida Silvestre, or under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), such as the Brazil Law No. 13,123, regulating access to the country's genetic heritage. On the other hand there are laws and regulations in user countries that ensure compliance with access laws of providing countries under the Nagoya protocol (e. g. Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16. April 2014, which has to be implemented at national level in the EU member states). As an institution holding genetic resources as living collections (including seeds), herbarium specimens and DNA and tissue samples as well as a wealth of associated data, the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin (BGBM) aims at creating transparency on the processes associated with the handling of these materials and data, such as metadata or associated analytical research results (Fig. 1). As a member of CETAF (Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities), IPEN (International Plant Exchange Network), and GGBN (Global Genome Biodiversity Network) the workflows and documentation of biological collections at BGBM are in compliance with CETAF’s Code of Conduct on Access and Benefit Sharing (https://www.cetaf.org/services/natural-science-collections-and-access-and-benefit-sharing) for herbarium specimens including algae, IPEN´s Code of Conduct (http://www.bgci.org/policy/ipen) for living plants and seeds, and GGBN’s (https://library.ggbn.org/share/s/UM5JietQR9aevtYDymHbjw) code of conduct (CoC) for DNA and tissue samples. A major challenge was to ensure the comprehensive, transparent, and traceable documentation of specimens and associated material and information along our internal workflows that have evolved with the development of a manifold of protocols. However, this challenge presented the opportunity to revise the existing protocols that cover the handling, collecting, and processing of the specimens, which had accumulated over the long history of our collections and our databases, into a consistent set of workflows (Stevens et al. 2019). A key component is the Collection Data Form (CDF) which guarantees that all necessary documentation will be imported into our collection management systems, including potential restriction of destructive sampling or loaning. The latest version of the CDF as wells as other information about BGBM’s collection and data workflows can be found at https://wiki.bgbm.org/collectionworkflows. This site has been created in late 2018 to be used by everyone to explore BGBM’s routines and examples. All legal and formal documents, such as collecting permits, Prior Informed Consent (PIC), CITES documentation, phytosanitary documents, Material Transfer Agreement (MTA), long term agreements with partner institutions, project agreements etc., are digitized and managed using a digital asset management software (Alfresco, an open source document management system, www.alfresco.com. The challenge is to link all this information unambiguously. To achieve this, all of BGBM’s collections (tissue and DNA-samples as well as living plants, seeds and diatom cultures) must have, whenever possible, a herbarium specimen that can be permanently stored and that allows a correct taxonomic identification of the material. These voucher specimens shall be digitized. Therefore, all data and all documentation can be traced back to identifiers referring to a herbarium specimen or living accession. The other collections (e. g. DNA and tissue samples) also get unique identifiers that are cross-referenced with each other. By this process we ensure that genetic material is identified by collecting number (assigned by the collector), as well as accession number and barcodes (assigned by BGBM according to type of material such as plant tissue, DNA, sample, seed lot, plant accession number of living plants, environmental sample, culture strain or herbarium specimen), and, most importantly in this regard, the document number/identifier of the legal or formal documents issued by the national legal entity or signed by a partner institution (assigned by the documentation office at BGBM when digitized). All these identifiers or numbers must refer to the respective material and as such allow BGBM to trace back the material at all stages of processing. This is of vital importance when genetic material is exchanged with partners. If there are any restrictions or any requirements for the further processing, use or exchange of plant material this is documented and flagged in all database modules and accession numbers.

Botanic gardens are an invaluable refuge for plant diversity for conservation, education and research. Worldwide, they manage over 100,000 species, roughly 30% of all plant species diversity, and over 41% of known threatened species; the botanic gardens in Germany house approximately 50,000 different species (Marquardt et al. in press). Scientists in need of plant material rely upon these resources for their research; they require a pooled, up-to-date inventory of ideally all accessions of these gardens. Sharing data from (living) specimen collections online has become routine in the past years; initiatives like PlantSearch of Botanic Gardens Conservation International and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) allow requesting specimens of interest. However, these catalogues are accessible for everyone. Legitimate concerns about potential theft and legal issues keep curators of living collections from sharing their full catalogues; in most cases, only filtered views of the data will be fed into these networks. Gardens4Science (http://gardens4science.biocase.org) aims at overcoming this issue by creating a trusted network between botanic gardens that allows an unfiltered access on the constituents’ accession catalogues. This unified data pool needs to be automatically synchronized with the individual garden’s catalogues, irrespective of the collection management systems used locally. For the three-year construction phase of Gardens4Science, focus is on Cactaceae and Bromeliaceae, since these families are well-represented in the collections and ideal models for studying the origin of biodiversity on evolutionary time scale. Gardens4Science’s technical architecture (Fig. 1) is based on existing tools for setting up biodiversity networks: The BioCASe (Biological Collections Access Service) Provider Software acts as an interface to the local databases that shields the network from their peculiarities (database management systems and data models used). BioCASe transforms the data into the Access to Biological Collections Data schema (ABCD) and publishes them as a BioCASe-compliant web service (Holetschek and Döring 2008, Holetschek et al. 2012). The data portal is based on portal software from the Global Genome Biodiversity Network and provides a user-specific view on the data. Registered trusted users will be able to display full details of individual accessions, whereas guest users will see only an aggregated view (Droege et al. 2014). The Berlin Indexing and Harvesting Toolkit (B-HIT) is used for harvesting the BioCASe web services of the local catalogues and creating a unified index database (Kelbert et al. 2015). Harvesting is done in regular intervals in order to keep the index in sync with the source databases and does not require any action on the provider’s side. The BioCASe (Biological Collections Access Service) Provider Software acts as an interface to the local databases that shields the network from their peculiarities (database management systems and data models used). BioCASe transforms the data into the Access to Biological Collections Data schema (ABCD) and publishes them as a BioCASe-compliant web service (Holetschek and Döring 2008, Holetschek et al. 2012). The data portal is based on portal software from the Global Genome Biodiversity Network and provides a user-specific view on the data. Registered trusted users will be able to display full details of individual accessions, whereas guest users will see only an aggregated view (Droege et al. 2014). The Berlin Indexing and Harvesting Toolkit (B-HIT) is used for harvesting the BioCASe web services of the local catalogues and creating a unified index database (Kelbert et al. 2015). Harvesting is done in regular intervals in order to keep the index in sync with the source databases and does not require any action on the provider’s side. In addition to harvesting, B-HIT performs several data cleaning steps. Foremost, it reconciles scientific names from the source databases with a taxonomic backbone (currently caryophyllales.org for Cactaceae and the Butcher and Gouda checklist for Bromeliaceae), which allows harmonizing the taxonomies from the different sources and the correction of outdated species names and orthographic mistakes. Provenance information are validated (for example specified geographic coordinates versus country) and corrected, if possible; date values are parsed and converted into a standard format. The issues found and potential corrections are compiled in reports and send to the curators, so the mistakes can be rectified in the source databases. In the construction phase, Gardens4Science consists of seven German Botanic gardens that share their accessions of the Bromeliaceae and Cactaceae families. Up to now (March 2019), 19.539 records have been published in Evo-BoGa, with about 3,500 to be added until the end of the project in January 2020. After the construction phase, it is planned to extend the network to include more Botanic Gardens – both from Germany and other countries – as well as additional plant families.

The variety of molecular methods used to analyze biosamples is continuously increasing, as is the need for the standardized deposition, documentation and citation of both the samples as well as the methods applied to them. Global initiatives such as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC, http://www.insdc.org), Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD, http://www.boldsystems.org), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, http://www.gbif.org) and the Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN, http://www.ggbn.org), in addition to many others, have been working towards standardized access to biological data for many years. Collectively, these biodiversity data management platforms provide a considerable and indispensable infrastructure to the research community. However, cross-linking the massive amounts of protein and DNA sequence data submitted to these databases every year with standardized records of the underlying biological material remains challenging. Best practices for standardized data submissions and data citations are urgently needed. In the long run, two goals should be achieved above all else: all sequence data should be linked to natural history collections, and biological material that was used for molecular research, especially DNA sequencing, should be deposited and, thus, made accessible in public, well curated collections. all sequence data should be linked to natural history collections, and biological material that was used for molecular research, especially DNA sequencing, should be deposited and, thus, made accessible in public, well curated collections. Here we will provide recommendations both for researchers and collections how to cite underlying biological material at INSDC and in publications in a standardized way towards Linked Open Data. We will also address how the global infrastructures and publishers can improve their interoperability.

Most successful research programs depend on easily accessible and standardized research infrastructures. Until recently, access to tissue or DNA samples with standardized metadata and of a sufficiently high quality, has been a major bottleneck for genomic research. The Global Geonome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) fills this critical gap by offering standardized, legal access to samples. Presently, GGBN’s core activity is enabling access to searchable DNA and tissue collections across natural history museums and botanic gardens. Activities are gradually being expanded to encompass all kinds of biodiversity biobanks such as culture collections, zoological gardens, aquaria, arboreta, and environmental biobanks. Broadly speaking, these collections all provide long-term storage and standardized public access to samples useful for molecular research. GGBN facilitates sample search and discovery for its distributed member collections through a single entry point. It stores standardized information on mostly geo-referenced, vouchered samples, their physical location, availability, quality, and the necessary legal information on over 50,000 species of Earth’s biodiversity, from unicellular to multicellular organisms. The GGBN Data Portal and the GGBN Data Standard are complementary to existing infrastructures such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and International Nucleotide Sequence Database (INSDC). Today, many well-known open-source collection management databases such as Arctos, Specify, and Symbiota, are implementing the GGBN data standard. GGBN continues to increase its collections strategically, based on the needs of the research community, adding over 1.3 million online records in 2018 alone, and today two million sample data are available through GGBN. Together with Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF), Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC), Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), and Synthesis of Systematic Resources (SYNTHESYS+), GGBN provides best practices for biorepositories on meeting the requirements of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS). By collaboration with the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), GGBN is exploring options for tagging publications that reference GGBN collections and associated specimens, made searchable through GGBN’s document library. Through its collaborative efforts, standards, and best practices GGBN aims at facilitating trust and transparency in the use of genetic resources.

The TDWG standard ABCD (Access to Biological Collections Data task group 2007) was aimed at harmonizing terminologies used for modelling biological collection information and is used as a comprehensive data format for transferring collection and observation data between software components. The project ABCD 3.0 (A community platform for the development and documentation of the ABCD standard for natural history collections) was financed by the German Research Council (DFG). It addressed the transformation of ABCD into a semantic web-compliant ontology by deconstructing the XML-schema into individually addressable RDF (Resource Description Framework) resources published via the TDWG Terms Wiki (https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/ABCD_2). In a second step, informal properties and concept-relations described by the original ABCD-schema were transformed into a machine-readable ontology and revised (Güntsch et al. 2016). The project was successfully finished in January 2019. The ABCD 3 setup allows for the creation of standard-conforming application schemas. The XML variant of ABCD 3.0 was restructured, simplified and made more consistent in terms of element names and types as compared to version 2.x. The XML elements are connected to their semantic concepts using the W3C SAWSDL (Semantic Annotation for Web Services Description Language and XML Schema) standard. The creation of specialized applications schemas is encouraged, the first use case was the application schema for zoology. It will also be possible to generate application schemas that break the traditional unit-centric structure of ABCD. Further achievements of the project include creating a Wikibase instance as the editing platform, with related tools for maintenance queries, such as checking for inconsistencies in the ontology and automated export into RDF. This allows for fast iterations of new or updated versions, e.g. when additional mappings to other standards are done. The setup is agnostic to the data standard created, it can therefore also be used to create or model other standards. Mappings to other standards like Darwin Core (https://dwc.tdwg.org/) and Audubon Core (https://tdwg.github.io/ac/) are now machine readable as well. All XPaths (XML Paths) of ABCD 3.0 XML have been mapped to all variants of ABCD 2.06 and 2.1, which will ease transition to the new standard. The ABCD 3 Ontology will also be uploaded to the GFBio Terminology Server (Karam et al. 2016), where individual concepts can be easily searched or queried, allowing for better interactive modelling of ABCD concepts. ABCD documentation now adheres to TDWG’s Standards Documentation Standard (SDS, https://www.tdwg.org/standards/sds/) and is located at https://abcd.tdwg.org/. The new site is hosted on Github: https://github.com/tdwg/abcd/tree/gh-pages.

The aim of the Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN, http://www.ggbn.org) is to foster collaboration among biodiversity biobanks on a global scale in order to further compliance with standards, best practices, and to secure interoperability and exchange of material in accordance with national and international legislation and conventions. Thus, key aspects of GGBN’s mission are to develop a network of trusted collections, establishing standards, and identifying best practices by reaching out to other communities. This is especially critical in the light of new international legislation such as the recent Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS). Biological repositories such as but not limited to natural history collections, botanic gardens, culture collections and zoos are facing a series of challenges triggered by the rapid acceleration in sequencing technology that has put added pressure on the use of samples, which just a few years ago were considered inaccessible for sequencing. ABS legislation applies to nearly all collection types, and with biodiversity biobanks increasing in number worldwide, there is an urgent need to streamline procedures and to ensure legislative compliance. Within Europe it is necessary to 1) reach common standards for biodiversity and environmental biobanks; 2) define best practices for the use of molecular collections; and 3) try to ease exchange of samples and related information, while staying compliant with legislation and conventions. Within the EU funded SYNTHESYS+ project (http://www.synthesys.info), GGBN is leading Network Activity 3 (NA3). An overview of planned activities and tasks will be given here with special emphasis on linkages within and beyond SYNTHESYS+.

Corvids (Corvidae) play a major role in ornithological research. Because of their worldwide distribution, diversity and adaptiveness, they have been studied extensively. The aim of the Corvids Literature Database (CLD, http://www.corvids.de/cld) is to record all publications (citation format) on all extant and extinct Crows, Ravens, Jays and Magpies worldwide and tag them with specific keywords making them available for researchers worldwide. The self-maintained project started in 2006 and today comprises 8000 articles, spanning almost 500 years. The CLD covers publications from 164 countries, written in 36 languages and published by 8026 authors in 1503 journals (plus books, theses and other publications). Forty-nine percent of all records are available online as full-text documents or deposited in the physical CLD archive. The CLD contains 442 original corvid descriptions. Here, we present a metadata assessment of articles recorded in the CLD including a gap analysis and prospects for future research. Database URL: http://www.corvids.de/cld.

Background Genomic research depends upon access to DNA or tissue collected and preserved according to high-quality standards. At present, the collections in most natural history museums do not sufficiently address these standards, making them often hard or impossible to use for whole-genome sequencing or transcriptomics. In response to these challenges, natural history museums, herbaria, botanical gardens and other stakeholders have started to build high-quality biodiversity biobanks. Unfortunately, information about these collections remains fragmented, scattered and largely inaccessible. Without a central registry or even an overview of relevant institutions, it is difficult and time-consuming to locate the needed samples. Scope The Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) was created to fill this vacuum by establishing a one-stop access point for locating samples meeting quality standards for genome-scale applications, while complying with national and international legislations and conventions. Increased accessibility to genomic samples will further genomic research and development, conserve genetic resources, help train the next generation of genome researchers and raise the visibility of biodiversity collections. Additionally, the availability of a data-sharing platform will facilitate identification of gaps in the collections, thereby empowering targeted sampling efforts, increasing the breadth and depth of preservation of genetic diversity. The GGBN is rapidly growing and currently has 41 members. The GGBN covers all branches of the Tree of Life, except humans, but here the focus is on a pilot project with emphasis on ‘harvesting’ the Tree of Life for vascular plant taxa to enable genome-level studies. Conclusion While current efforts are centred on getting the existing samples of all GGBN members online, a pilot project, GGI-Gardens, has been launched as proof of concept. Over the next 6 years GGI-Gardens aims to add to the GGBN high-quality genetic material from at least one species from each of the approx. 460 vascular plant families and one species from half of the approx. 15 000 vascular plant genera.

A simple, permanent and reliable specimen identifier system is needed to take the informatics of collections into a new era of interoperability. A system of identifiers based on HTTP URI (Uniform Resource Identifiers), endorsed by the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF), has now been rolled out to 14 member organisations (Güntsch et al. 2017). CETAF-Identifiers have a Linked Open Data redirection mechanism for both human- and machine-readable access and, if fully implemented, provide Resource Description Framework (RDF) -encoded specimen data following best practices continuously improved by members of the initiative. To date, more than 20 million physical collection objects have been equipped with CETAF Identifiers (Groom et al. 2017). To facilitate the implementation of stable identifiers, simple redirection scripts and guidelines for deciding on the local identifier syntax have been compiled (http://cetafidentifiers.biowikifarm.net/wiki/Main_Page). Furthermore, a capable "CETAF Specimen URI Tester" (http://herbal.rbge.info/) provides an easy-to-use service for testing whether the existing identifiers are operational. For the usability and potential of any identifier system associated with evolving data objects, active links to the source information are critically important. This is particularly true for natural history collections facing the next wave of industrialised mass digitisation, where specimens come online with only basic, but rapidly evolving label data. Specimen identifier systems must therefore have components for monitoring the availability and correct implementation of individual data objects. Our next implementation steps will involve the development of a "Semantic Specimen Catalogue", which has a list of all existing specimen identifiers together with the latest RDF metadata snapshot. The catalogue will be used for semantic inference across collections as well as the basis for periodic testing of identifiers.

The GGBN Data Standard (https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/GGBN_Data_Standard) provides a platform based on a documented agreement to promote the efficient sharing and usage of genomic sample material and associated specimen information in a consistent way. It builds upon existing standards commonly used within the community extending them with the capability to exchange data on tissue, environmental and DNA samples as well as sequences. The standard has been recently extended to support environmental DNA and High Throughput Sequencing (HTS) library samples. Both, eDNA and HTS library sample use cases have been published in the GGBN Sandbox (http://sandbox.ggbn.org) and will be presented here. The use case collection is documented in the GGBN wiki (http://wiki.ggbn.org/ggbn/Use_Case_Collection). In addition a general overview of the GGBN Data Portal (http://www.ggbn.org) will be given. Based on ABCD, DwC and the GGBN Data Standard the GGBN Data Portal is the gateway to standardized access of DNA, tissue and environmental samples and their associated specimens. The third core piece of GGBN is the GGBN Document Library (https://library.ggbn.org), today containing more than 300 documents about research, management and legal aspects of biodiversity biobanks. We will provide an overview of covered topics and gaps that the community can help to fill. Finally an outlook of goals and priority tasks for the next two years will be given.

The GGBN Data Portal (http://www.ggbn.org, Droege et al. 2014) has established standardised data flows for genomic DNA samples, including voucher specimens, tissue samples, DNA samples as well as resulting sequences and publications. Dealing with different types of DNA (aDNA, gDNA, eDNA) is essential and closely related to user-friendly search and display functionalities. GGBN aims both at preserving voucher specimens of all kinds of DNA as well as making these important data accessible on the Internet. In addition to genomic DNA, the development and use of high-throughput-/next-generation-sequencing (HTS formerly designated NGS) has outstripped current plans of SYNTHESYS and GGBN to join natural history collection data with DNA and tissue collection data. HTS libraries can be considered as a preparation of the genetic material of a single organism or of multiple organism (e.g. from an environmental mixed sample). From that point of view, they are the actual physical molecular representation of a specimen or sample. However, these libraries come with specific adaptors that limit their transferability to other sequencing systems. The libraries are prepared at great expense, but frequently are only used for a single project, not making use of additional useful information that could potentially be generated. To increase the potential of the HTS libraries to be used for multiple projects they have to be discoverable via published metadata. Optimally, HTS library metadata will include specific standardized keywords (by e.g. organism, HTS method etc.). Here we present our ideas and a prototype for eDNA samples and HTS libraries based on the GGBN Data Standard (Droege et al. 2016). A use case collection from animals, diatoms, fungi and plants has been developed and is available in the GGBN Sandbox (see more details at http://wiki.ggbn.org/ggbn/Use_Case_Collection). These examples will be improved upon and kept on-line at least until 2020, so progress can be observed.

The Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) was formed in 2011 with the principal aim of making high-quality well-documented and vouchered collections that store DNA or tissue samples of biodiversity, discoverable for research through a networked community of biodiversity repositories. This is achieved through the GGBN Data Portal (http://data.ggbn.org), which links globally distributed databases and bridges the gap between biodiversity repositories, sequence databases and research results. Advances in DNA extraction techniques combined with next-generation sequencing technologies provide new tools for genome sequencing. Many ambitious genome sequencing projects with the potential to revolutionize biodiversity research consider access to adequate samples to be a major bottleneck in their workflow. This is linked not only to accelerating biodiversity loss and demands to improve conservation efforts but also to a lack of standardized methods for providing access to genomic samples. Biodiversity biobank-holding institutions urgently need to set a standard of collaboration towards excellence in collections stewardship, information access and sharing and responsible and ethical use of such collections. GGBN meets these needs by enabling and supporting accessibility and the efficient coordinated expansion of biodiversity biobanks worldwide.