New field definitions for speleothems, cave minerals and samples

The problem with the existing IUS entity, ``SM: Specimen'', is that it is not yet defined. Possibly it was intended to be used with biological specimens, possibly it was for mineral samples, possibly any specimens. The type of information collected is different in each case (biological vs mineral); possibly so different that some would suggest they should be specified in different entity definitions.

I will attempt however to keep them together: see Table 2.

Table 2: Proposed Field Definitions for Entity SM: Specimen

Entity:	SM Specimen
Field	Description
01	Biological Specimen
02	Geological Specimen
03	Hydrological Specimen
04	Meteorological Specimen
05	...Other Specimen (yet to be defined)

The table can be continued to accommodate additional fields.

This paper is concerned with Geological Specimens, which includes speleothems. Other people may care to tackle the definitions for their field of endeavour.

In the field of Geological Specimens, we may need to prepare Table Definitions for the following items:

Unique identifiers

are required for each sample. Note that one sample can be subdivided (broken, cleaved, sectioned, etc) into multiple sub-samples. The method I am using at present is to use the Cave Tag number, followed by a sequence (discussed later). For purposes of database field definitions, you actually need two numbers. One number is simply a unique sequence number, and the other is what is written on the sample bag or container.

Define what the sample is

using Hill & Forti definitions (or new ones where H & F is inadequate) The sample could be a speleothem, bedrock, mineral, etc (discussed later).

Naming conventions for speleothem types and subtypes

If the sample is a speleothem, it should be named (after Hill & Forti 1997). This could be a list, if the sample contains more than one speleothem. Therefore a table of speleothem types, subtypes and varieties is required. This opens a ``can of worms'' - see my article on classifying helictites (Rowling 2001)

Naming conventions for cave minerals

If the sample is a mineral, it should be named (after Hill & Forti 1997 and after Dana). This could be a list, if the sample contains many minerals. Therefore a table of minerals is required.

Crystal classification

If appropriate, crystal classification (Russian system) may be needed. Therefore a table of crystal classifications is required.

Who holds samples

For sub-divided samples, this definition may be applied to the sub-sample. There are two ways of doing this. One way is to simply have a text field, but the better way would be to have a table of people who hold samples.

Present location of samples

There could be a table of locations where samples are held.

Sample numbering scheme

Each scientist has their own way of numbering things. Perhaps we could define a scheme which works for everyone.

Tests

What tests have been performed on the sample. A table of tests could be devised, although that may be rather large. In this case, possibly there could be a table of the more common tests, with ``other'' being described as a text field.

Location

Where the sample was taken from, eg the surface, underground, twilight zone, underwater, buried in sediment, and so on as well as some description about the sample location and the cave (or nearest cave). This could be done as a series of tables together with a link to the cave ID in the Caves Database.

References

Publications on the sample (preferably cross reference as per IUS Article definitions)