├── Charter.md ├── NCD-v090_TDWG ├── NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.doc ├── NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.pdf ├── NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.doc └── NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.pdf ├── README.md ├── TG-Charter.md └── crosswalks-related-docs ├── BiodiversityRegistryDatafieldCrosswalk_21Sep2015.xlsx ├── Copy of NCD_ABCD_Elements.xlsx ├── IPT-Metadata-Profile-Additions_v3_GBIFDocumentForNCD.doc ├── NCD-crosswalk-to-DublinCore__based-on-NCD-v0.34_DC-v1.1.xlsx ├── NCD_EAD.xls ├── Required NCD elements.doc └── readme.md /Charter.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Collections Descriptions Interest Group Charter 2 | 3 | TDWG Interest Group 4 | 5 | ## Convenors 6 | 7 | Deb Paul (dpaul@fsu.edu) 8 | 9 | Matt Woodburn (m.woodburn@nhm.ac.uk) 10 | 11 | (Past Co-convenor, Alex Thompson) 12 | 13 | ## Current people expressing interest to work on NCD 14 | 15 | Wouter Addink (wouter(at)eti.uva.nl) Technical - NCD Toolkit 16 | Stan Blum (stanblum(at)gmail.com) 17 | Carol Butler (butlercr(at)si.edu) Terminology 18 | Heather Cole (Heather.Cole(at)AGR.GC.CA) 19 | Shelley James (Sheley.James(at)bgcp.nsw.gov.au) 20 | Connie Rinaldo (crinaldo(at)oeb.harvard.edu) Documentation 21 | Barbara Thiers (bthiers(at)nybg.org) 22 | Mike Trizna (triznam(at)si.edu) 23 | Sharon Grant (sgrant(at)fieldmuseum.org) 24 | Kate Webbink (kwebbink(at)fieldmuseum.org) 25 | Janeen Jones (jjones(at)fieldmuseum.org) 26 | Pete Herbst (pherbst(at)fieldmuseum.org) 27 | Rob Zshernitz (rzschernitz(at)fieldmuseum.org) 28 | Rusty Russell (rrussell(at)fieldmuseum.org) 29 | 30 | 31 | ## Motivation 32 | 33 | The Group is developing and supporting the Natural Collections Description (NCD) data standard for describing entire collections of natural history materials. Examples include collections of specimens, observation data, visual resources, photographs, and materials from the many voyages of discovery that have been conducted. Collection description records contain information about the collection, access and usage of the collection and where to get more detailed information. 34 | 35 | There are valuable collections that have no information stored in any database and many do not have a presence on the Internet. Institutional and Collection-level data currently shared along with specimen-record-level data records is often sparse and not in any way complete. This collection-level data is currently mapped to the Ecological Metadata Language (EML) standard originally developed to meet the data-sharing needs of the ecological community. Data provided in the EML data file often conflates data about what is in the dataset being shared with data about the entire collection or institution. 36 | 37 | Collection-level information mapped to EML and currently provided with biodiversity datasets is not sufficient to answer current-day data needs for institutional, regional, national, or international planning. More and richer data about collection holdings and the institutions that house them is desperately needed for strategic prioritization of collections data mobilization. Data-sharing at this level is also problematic as it is not currently available through an API. In other words, there is no machine-to-machine data-sharing or data-update capability. This means all collections-level information worldwide must be updated by hand, by humans and is therefore quickly out-of-date and out-of-sync across disparate resources. Also, collection data provided in the EML data model cannot be used to automatically discover such information as what percentage of a collection is digitized or georeferenced. The original NCD charter and work recognized many of these issues but all members of the group agree the charter needs to be updated in light of new momentum to address these needs, including plans by GBIF for the development of a new resource to manage and share collections-level data. 38 | 39 | ## Becoming Involved 40 | 41 | The Convener would be pleased to hear from anyone, and particularly: 42 | 43 | * those that have skills in the implementation of Web-based information systems, or 44 | * in writing descriptions based on interviews with collection owners, or 45 | are owners of collections that would themselves like to test and make use of the standard and associated software, or 46 | * just have an interest in the use of collection descriptions in resource discovery systems. 47 | 48 | ## History and Context 49 | 50 | ### What is NCD? 51 | 52 | Natural Collections Description (NCD) is a data standard for describing groups of natural history objects; one NCD record describes one entire group. 53 | 54 | As part of addressing the critical need for much better knowledge about worldwide collection holders and their holdings, this NCD group recognizes the need for data standards to capture concepts not currently part of the EML standard. Current steps are being taken at GBIF to create an automated collection-level data-sharing resource that will encompass the data currently housed in GRBio. In this sense, the NCD group recognizes our path is one of co-developing a standard and a reference implementation and producing standards documentation on the data and data model found in this reference implementation so that others can build compatible systems. At the same time we will strive to provide a rich, but carefully curated, set of terms and relationships directed at addressing known knowledge gaps and accessibility issues. We understand the need to keep the model as simple as possible, and thoughtfully choosing what collections-level data is critical to providing policy-makers and researchers alike with the best data available when planning. Making this data available, in a structured format, with a robust API available, would mean, for example, that we could more easily show how many herbarium are digitizing - and how much is done. Visualizing institution and collections-level data of this type also presents a captivating way to show the value of this metadata. 55 | 56 | The NCD standard seeks to describe the chracteristics of groups of objects that are already represented indivudiually under other current and emerging TDWG standards such as Darwin Core (specimens, observations) or Audubon Core (images, field notebooks). This limitation is imposed so that the scope of NCD can be narrowly defined to the areas in which the TDWG organization has already built up the existing body of knowledge for what constitutes useful descriptive elements. 57 | 58 | ### What are collections descriptions? 59 | 60 | In the natural history community the nature of collections can vary widely both across and within organizations. For the purposes of this standard, a collection will simply be any group of items that share some common characteristics such that they are useful to describe as a group. Such characteristics might include: 61 | 62 | * items that were collected or made by a particular person 63 | * items that came from the same place 64 | * all pages of a digitized fieldbook 65 | * a group of records in a dataset or database 66 | * all specimens referenced within a single publication 67 | * specimens that belong to some taxonomic group 68 | * all specimens collected on a research voyage 69 | * all specimens housed within a single location 70 | * all specimens managed by an individual curator 71 | 72 | This group will lay out a standard methodology for enumerating those common chracteristics at the group level for the purpose of communicating the eixistance and nature of to others. These group level characteristics may come from a variety of sources including aggreagations of individual records where those records are already digitized or hand generation via manual inventories of physical collections. 73 | 74 | ### What are the uses of collection descriptions? 75 | 76 |
77 |
Provide a complete overview of each collection, regardless of its digitization status.
78 |
Provide a complete overview of each collection, regardless of its digitization status. 79 | Detailed item-level descriptions often take a long time to generate. A collection-level record can ensure that knowledge about a collection can be rapidly revealed. A collection description record can be created for a collection whether the items in that collection have their own records in a database, or not. Collection description records can be created with the use of existing published or unpublished resources such as printed catalogues, exhibition planning documents or archival finding aids. 80 |
81 |
Provide relationships between collections in time and space
82 |
"Virtual collections" are another way to link resources. Some organisations divide collections between departments for curatorial purposes. Researchers would need to contact each department individually to assess the complete collection. Similarly, some collections, such as those of Darwin, have been dispersed throughout several organisations. These collections may be re-united in a virtual sense, using collection descriptions for each component.
83 | 84 |
Provide a broader context for item level information
85 |
It is also useful to hold the details that are common to the whole collection once, rather than being repeated with the record for each item. Where a database containing item-level details exists, a link can be provided to that database to provide more detail. If the collection does not have an item-level database. Data recorded in the collection description records can be used to produce exhibit labels. The data can also be provided to external initiatives, some of which wish to merge data from several sources to provide regional coverage of biodiversity collections.
86 | 87 |
Provide a descriptive overview of the collections landscape
88 |
89 |
94 | 95 |
Provide aid for collections management processes
96 |
Collection descriptions enable a broad perspective. A set of collection descriptions could serve a variety of additional purposes for any organisation: 97 | 103 |
104 |
105 | 106 | ### How has NCD evolved and who is involved? 107 | 108 | The first steps in standardising collection-level description began with a European Union Framework V project known as BioCASE - the Biodiversity Collections Access Service for Europe. This project ran from November 2001 until early 2005 (more on this at the BioCASE project website.) 109 | 110 | An RLG Programs working group of mainly North American natural history librarians and archivists known as RAVNS (Resources AVailable in Natural Sciences) has made the BioCASE metadata standard more generally applicable, rather than dealing only with specimen collections it is now a standard that covers any type of natural history collection. RAVNS includes representatives from the following institutions: 111 | 112 | * American Museum of Natural History 113 | * Missouri Botanical Garden 114 | * Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 115 | * National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 116 | * Natural History Museum, London 117 | * New York Botanical Garden 118 | * Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University 119 | 120 | Discussion at the TDWG 2004 meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, concluded that a standard for describing natural history collections would fit well with the suite of data standards being developed on behalf of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 121 | 122 | ## Summary 123 | 124 | ~~The Collections Descriptions Interest Group brings together work on collections descriptions being carried out for the European Union Framework VI programme known as SYNTHESYS and the work performed by RAVNS under the auspices of RLG with that carried out by TDWG members.~~ 125 | 126 | ~~Natural Collections Descriptions (NCD) covers all types of collections of natural history material; specimens, original artwork, photographs, archives, published material or a mixture.~~ 127 | 128 | ~~The Interest Group is developing NCD for use with RDF to ensure that it integrates with TDWG's common development architecture. The standard enables the aggregation of collections descriptions from many sources and facilitates resource discovery - particularly for collections that do not have a Web presence.~~ 129 | 130 | ~~NCD is a standard between the general resource discovery standards such as Dublin Core, and the rich collections description standards such as EAD. Mappings enable the extraction of a Dublin Core record from an NCD record or, conversely, filling out an NCD record into an EAD record.~~ 131 | 132 | ## Resources 133 | 134 | * ~~The NCD Website is at: http://www.tdwg.org/activities/ncd/~~ 135 | * ~~To join the mailing list see: http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-ncd~~ 136 | * ~~Discussion and documents are on the Wiki: http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/NCD/WebHome~~ 137 | 138 | ## Original Charter Core Members 139 | 140 | Wouter Addink (wouter(at)eti.uva.nl) Technical - NCD Toolkit 141 | Carol Butler (butlercr(at)si.edu) Terminology 142 | Markus Döring (m.doering(at)BGBM.org) Technical - RDF 143 | Doug Holland (doug.holland(at)mobot.org) Data mapping 144 | Barbara Mathé (mathe(at)amnh.org) Data mapping 145 | Connie Rinaldo (crinaldo(at)oeb.harvard.edu) Documentation 146 | Larry Speers (lspeers(at)gbif.org) GBIF liaison 147 | Günter Waibel (Guenter_Waibel(at)notes.rlg.org) Resource organiser 148 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.doc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.doc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.pdf: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.doc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.doc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.pdf: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Natural Collections Descriptions (NCD) 2 | 3 | A data standard for exchanging data describing natural history collections 4 | 5 | * **Download**: [Download](NCD-v090_TDWG) 6 | * **Status**: TDWG __DRAFT__ standard 7 | * **Category**: Technical specification 8 | * **Permanent URL**: http://www.tdwg.org/standards/312 9 | * **TDWG task group**: Natural Collections Descriptions interest group 10 | * **Date submitted**: 2008-08-12 11 | * **Last modified**: 2009-09-14 12 | 13 | # Note: the development of this unratified draft has been discontinued. 14 | 15 | As of 2018, work on development of a new TDWG Collections Description metadata standard is being overseen by the [Collections Description Interest Group](https://www.tdwg.org/community/cd/). To follow the work of this group, visit [its repository](https://github.com/tdwg/cd). 16 | 17 | ## Introduction 18 | 19 | Natural Collections Description (NCD) is a proposed data standard for describing collections of natural history materials at the collection level; one NCD record describes one entire collection. 20 | 21 | Collection descriptions are electronic records that document the holdings of an organisation as groups of items, which complement the more traditional item-level records such as are produced for a single specimen or a library book. NCD is tailored to natural history. It lies between general resource discovery standards such as Dublin Core (DC) and rich collection description standards such as the Encoded Archival Description (EAD). 22 | 23 | The NCD standard covers all types of natural history collections, such as specimens, original artwork, archives, observations, library materials, datasets, photographs or mixed collections such as those that result from expeditions and voyages of discovery. 24 | 25 | ## Preferred citation 26 | 27 | > Natural Collections Descriptions interest group. 2008. Natural Collections Descriptions (NCD), version 2008-08-12. Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) http://www.tdwg.org/standards/312 28 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /TG-Charter.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Collections Descriptions Task Group Charter 2 | ## Rationale and Motivation 3 | Meetings of the Natural Collections Description (NCD) Interest Group at TDWG 2016 and TDWG 2017 confirm the need for a collections description standard. This Scientific Collections Descriptions Task Group seeks to provide a standard that results in the ability to provide automated collections-level metrics and better collections visibility. Prior work done by the NCD Interest Group provides the starting point. We need an acceptable (adequate) vocabulary that describes the collections themselves, not the published datasets. This is especially critical for discovering collections that are not yet publishing their data anywhere. 4 | There are valuable collections that have no information stored in any database and many do not have a presence on the Internet. Institutional and Collection-level data currently shared along with specimen-record-level data records is often sparse and not in any way complete. This collection-level data is currently mapped to the Ecological Metadata Language (EML) standard originally developed to meet the data-sharing needs of the ecological community. Data provided in the EML data file often conflates data about what is in the dataset being shared with data about the entire collection or institution. 5 | Collections-level data are often also shared in free-text fields making automated tracking of worldwide collections status and metrics, very difficult or impossible. Development, adoption, and implementation of a carefully curated set of collections concepts will support much-needed access to collections-level information necessary for policy, regional, organization, governmental, and individual decision making. This information must be accessible via a collaboratively developed API. 6 | 7 | ## Mission and Scope 8 | The overall mission includes reaching out to the broader collections community to insure we are including terms and concepts in the standard that are critical to collections discovery, collections use, collections expertise documentation, and worldwide collections status. Some of this work has been done through the TDWG 2016 and TDWG 2017 meetings, but also through other initiatives such as the GRBio group, GBIF, iDigBio, VertNet, the ABCD standard development group and others. Our 2016-2017 meetings suggest a narrower scope from the original NCD existing draft. Since the original draft, much has changed in the data standards landscape. Those providing input to this endeavor suggest focusing on scientific collections while recognizing the need to be able to share data about related collections (such as art derived from the science collections). 9 | Standards developed by other groups can now be used so that while the original NCD set of terms were completely stand-alone, going forward we should be able to pull most terms from other standards such as schema.org organizations, FOAF for people, etc. 10 | Development of this collections-level data resource also facilitates further development of a linked-data scenario making it simpler and more automated to cite and attribute collections use and track these uses. Such a resource helps administrators / collection managers / curators / universities to learn about and demonstrate the value of their collections. 11 | 12 | ## Issues of the Task Group 13 | * Resource discovery -- taxonomic and geographic coverage; collecting/collector history (expeditions?); ancillary collections and data sets, such as tissues, field notes, measurements, inventories. 14 | * Provide guidelines for referencing collections and specimens in both human readable and machine actionable forms 15 | * Integrate registration of data providers with collection-level descriptions, including material that is not yet digital 16 | * Estimating the scope of digitization work to be done; conversely, summarize what has been digitized 17 | * Data quality assessment 18 | 19 | ## Challenges 20 | * tracking undigitized collections (need to discover them first) 21 | * allow / deal with merging / splitting collections 22 | * it is suggested that "we" authoritatively manage the IDs necessary to implement this. Will need to use contextual clues embedded in records to disambiguate. 23 | * exactly which parts of these records need to be (must be) machine readable? 24 | example: collectionCodes confusion, who are the contacts for what purpose 25 | * prototype. Will there be a public interface for humans to update? Some (most?) of this will be via an API - not human-mediated. So how do these fit / link so everyone can fulfill their role. 26 | * access / curatorial control: Authorization (Authentication), Curation, Accreditation 27 | * authority. Who are the authors of this data? 28 | * life-cycle issues. what can we learn about life-cycle issues from the publishers? 29 | * collection outreach / invitation. We will need carrots / incentives to invite / include people in this endeavor. We need a model (is there one)? 30 | * can we use this as a way to bootstrap curation of collections data? (future) 31 | 32 | ## Responsibilities by Task Groups 33 | * Use Cases group (Barb Thiers): gather and evaluate. Gathering done (not exhaustive). Use cases don’t need to be comprehensive. Barb notes it would be good to figure out how to identify compelling collections (for conservation, CITES, transfer of material, discovering which are at risk, etc). These use cases assist with scoping the data standard. Those wishing to help include: Barbara Thiers, Jana Hoffmann, Carolyn Sheffield, and Anissa Lybaert. (Perhaps Connie Rinaldo too). 34 | * Next - Update mappings and crosswalks between other relevant standards such as (ABCD, EML, GRBIO, IH, iDigBio, GBIF). Jana, Falko, (others?) will walk through this exercise to make sure we use DwC, ABCD, ABCD-EFG where appropriate. 35 | * Hypothetical datasets (Dag E?) 36 | * Drafting this charter 37 | * Update the standard 38 | 39 | ## Organization 40 | * Meet online every other month (or as needed) 41 | * Two co-conveners 42 | * Subcommittees to take on tasks as needed 43 | * Use Cases group (Barb Thiers) 44 | * See [Use cases](https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/wiki/Use-Cases) gathered and added to the wiki 45 | * Update mappings and crosswalks (Jana, Falko, ...) 46 | * Some of this is done. see [crosswalks](https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/wiki/Crosswalks) 47 | * Hypothetical datasets (Dag E?) 48 | * Document data-sharing standard changes needed to implement (DwC-A changes? IPT changes?, etc) 49 | * Drafting this charter 50 | * Done 51 | 52 | ## Membership 53 | Currently assumed to be those who expressed interest at the last two TDWG meetings. 54 | 55 | Matt Woodburn (Co-chair), Barbara Thiers, Joanna McCaffrey, Kevin Love, Alex Thompson, Donald Hobern, Deborah Paul, Sharon Grant, Kate Webbink*, (et al at Field Museum), Mike Trizna, William Ulate, Connie Rinaldo, Andrea Hahn*, Wouter Addink, Carolyn Sheffield, Holly Little, James Macklin, Anissa Lybaert, Joel Ramirez, Melissa Tulig, Falko Glöckler (MfN Berlin), Jana Hoffmann (MfN Berlin), Dag Endresen, Judith Price 56 | 57 | ## Meetings, documentation and reporting 58 | 59 | ## Historical documents and Background 60 | * https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Natural_Collections_Description 61 | * https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/blob/master/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-NonNormative.doc 62 | * https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/blob/master/NCD-v090_TDWG/NCD-v090_TDWG-Normative.doc 63 | * Crosswalks including mapping from [GRBio.org](https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/wiki/Crosswalks) 64 | * link to [2016](https://tdwg2016.sched.com/event/8jva/ig09-natural-collections-descriptions-ncd) and [2017](https://biss.pensoft.net/article/20322/) interest group abstracts 65 | * [Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoIlKX666QPjKN3UGceAK_T0J2i0laft-io9Fr-Adrw/edit?usp=sharing) with 2016 and 2017 meeting notes 66 | * Use cases added to the [wiki](https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/wiki/Use-Cases) from GBIF, IH, Randy Singer (iDigBio), The Smithsonian, and the Field Museum. 67 | 68 | ## Draft Specifications 69 | * https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/tree/master/NCD-v090_TDWG 70 | 71 | ## Expert reviews (potential list, not exhaustive list) 72 | * Jonathan Rees 73 | * GBIF 74 | * iDigBio 75 | * VertNet 76 | * Symbiota 77 | * Specify 78 | * ARCTOS 79 | 80 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/BiodiversityRegistryDatafieldCrosswalk_21Sep2015.xlsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/BiodiversityRegistryDatafieldCrosswalk_21Sep2015.xlsx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/Copy of NCD_ABCD_Elements.xlsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/Copy of NCD_ABCD_Elements.xlsx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/IPT-Metadata-Profile-Additions_v3_GBIFDocumentForNCD.doc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/IPT-Metadata-Profile-Additions_v3_GBIFDocumentForNCD.doc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/NCD-crosswalk-to-DublinCore__based-on-NCD-v0.34_DC-v1.1.xlsx: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/NCD-crosswalk-to-DublinCore__based-on-NCD-v0.34_DC-v1.1.xlsx -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/NCD_EAD.xls: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/NCD_EAD.xls -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/Required NCD elements.doc: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tdwg/ncd/507b1ebb553dce169012dfad7bc6adb3cc132b3e/crosswalks-related-docs/Required NCD elements.doc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /crosswalks-related-docs/readme.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Documents in this directory are crosswalks and other documents relevant to the development of the NCD standard. Included are such files as crosswalks for the fields present at GRBio with the original NCD draft, as well as similar documents from other groups. 2 | 3 | Please see annotations in the **[wiki](https://github.com/tdwg/ncd/wiki/Crosswalks-and-Use-Cases)**. 4 | 5 | **NOTE: This folder is no longer in active use. Documents have been copied to the [current CD repo](https://github.com/tdwg/cd/tree/master/reference/crosswalks).** 6 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------