New Crowdin updates (#185)

* New translations road-map.md (French)

* New translations road-map.md (Spanish)

* New translations road-map.md (Arabic)

* New translations road-map.md (Italian)

* New translations road-map.md (Japanese)

* New translations road-map.md (Russian)

* New translations connected-systems.md (Chinese Simplified)

* New translations faq.md (Chinese Simplified)

* New translations how-to.md (Chinese Simplified)

* New translations road-map.md (Chinese Simplified)

* New translations faq.md (Chinese Traditional)

* New translations home.md (Chinese Traditional)

* New translations how-to.md (Chinese Traditional)

* New translations road-map.md (Chinese Traditional)

ar/road-map.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 permalink: /road-map
 lang-ref: road-map
-title: GRSciColl 2023-2024 road map
+title: GRSciColl 2025 road map
 description: |
   This road map builds in the [2021 roadmap](https://github.com/gbif/registry/blob/dev/roadmap-grscicoll-2021.md) as well as the efforts in 2022 to build a community of editors an mediators.
 background: "{{ site.data.images.pandeleteius.src }}"
@@ -15,66 +15,38 @@ height: 70vh
 toc: true
 ---
 
-## 1. Review data schema
+## 1.   Continue work with the community as well as exiting platforms to update and grow data and improve interoperability
 
-The data model for GRSciColl has evolved over time to accommodate the data sources being connected, such as iDigBio, Index Herbariorum and the original databases that were integrated. At the same time, there has been extensive work by the TDWG Collections Descriptions Interest Group to standardise approaches and vocabularies that are of relevance - this is emerging as a framework called Latimer Core.
+We aim to keep supporting our community of editors, train and welcome new editors as well as work with other data holding platforms (such as CETAF and ALA) to improve the data available in GRSciColl.
 
-We will review all the fields in the data schema and their content to ensure they are intuitive, documented and where possible, aligned to Latimer Core. As examples of what this might entail, GRSciColl currently has:
+Some of the work with existing platforms may include:
+- Importing identifiers to facilitate interoperability,
+- Set up connection so an external platform can become a master source for GRSciColl entries,
+- Help with bulk import and update of GRSciColl data based on these sources.
 
-- “ContentType” uses a controlled vocabulary that has caused confusion for editors. This should be reviewed and aligned to Latimer Core.
-- “Discipline” with a controlled vocabulary that could be aligned to the Latimer Core Discipline
+## 2.   Create and run a GRSciColl training module for editors
 
-“Discipline” with a controlled vocabulary that could be aligned to the Latimer Core Discipline It is sometimes unclear when and how the fields “inactive”, and “isHerbarium” should be used and might
+The GBIF Secretariat, in collaboration with our community, is developing a training module for GRSciColl editors. This module aims to cover everything a National GRSciColl editor might need to curate and edit GRSciColl content.
 
-## 2. Support structured collection descriptors
-
-Currently GRSciColl is not structured to allow discovery of collections or individual specimens that could be critical for researchers. Support for describing a registered collection in GRSciColl is currently limited to single fields that capture broad statements of taxonomic coverage, geographic coverage and e.g. important collectors. With this enhancement, we intend to support richer, structured descriptions, such as the ability to upload an inventory of the species represented or e.g. a table representing the “species, sex, object count”. This is intended to both facilitate discovery of collections (“who holds preserved material of a specific species”) and to allow a more accurate description of a collections holding, whether digitized or not.
+The goal is to organize at least one online training event in 2025.
 
 We anticipate supporting multiple descriptors for a collection, with a descriptor containing a title, textual explanation and a table of data edited inline or uploaded as e.g. a spreadsheet.
 
-A simple example is illustrated.
-
-<img width="420" alt="Screenshot 2023-09-28 at 16 43 46" src="https://github.com/gbif/registry/assets/7677271/459e7d2a-2ddb-4307-9e8f-fef88db96ace" />
-
-We envisage the system would be flexible enough to accommodate differing levels of detail from simple lists, to detailed representations of the collection which we anticipate exist for some collections. By supporting multiple descriptors for a collection, the system would support different aspects of the collection to be documented at different detail levels. The contents will be indexed to help discoverability of collections. For example, we aim to index scientific names using the GBIF Backbone taxonomy in order to facilitate collection discovery by taxa.
-
-It should be noted that this approach would mean that one may not be able to aggregate counts across descriptors as objects may be included in multiple places and thus double counted. However, the primary focus of this is to support the needs of taxonomists looking to discover collections of interest or where individual specimens may reside.
-
-The Index Herbariorum has descriptor tables (example) which would be automatically incorporated during the synchronization process.
-
-An API that exposes the descriptors as a Latimer Core document representing the collection will be available (likely in JSON format).
-
-## 3. Institutional surveys
-
-While the collection descriptors above aim to help taxonomists discover where specimens of a particular species are preserved, institutional surveys are concerned with assessment and comparison across institutions. There are many approaches to assess the composition and size of collections held by institutions, with a view to generate aggregate views at higher scales (e.g. nationally) and to draw comparisons across them. These are often in the form of a survey or structured database and in many cases use a different set of categories than how the institution has registered its collections within GRSciColl. The application of consistent categories across collections are necessary to draw consistent comparisons across them.
-
-The survey results would be clearly labeled as such and not be editable as they represent a particular assessment in a defined context.
-
-We intend to explore adding the ability to archive the outputs of such surveys when they have produced data that can be expressed within the framework of Latimer Core. As an example, the Global Collection Survey assessed institutions against a survey scheme that included:
-
-- The type of the collections categorised to a specific list (Amphibians, birds, molluscs, human biology etc) The geographic region categorised to a specific list (Australasia, Pacific, Europe etc) The number of objects held for the combination of the collection type and region grouped by ranges (1-10, 11-100 etc) The number of staff years of experience per region and separately per collection type
-- The geographic region categorized to a specific list (e.g. Australasia, Pacific, Europe)
-- The number of objects held for the combination of the collection type and region grouped by ranges (1-10, 11-100, etc.)
-- GRSciColl can help provide services that drive dashboards and reports Survey protocols may be shared with other initiatives, helping increase the range of institutions that can be compared in a consistent manner The results of previous surveys become more visible and may reduce effort spent, or the need for more surveys to be conducted.
+## 3.   Improve discoverability and representation of collections by topic
 
-The outputs of these data can likely be structured as Latimer Core, and held as a survey response against the specific survey protocol for the institution.
+A lot of the GRSciColl content is not standardized and lives in various free text fields. For example, many entomology collections can only be found by using a combination of keywords like “entomology” and “insect” in free text searches.
 
-We foresee that archiving these may bring benefits:
+With the help of the relevant communities, we would like to identify collections that belong to defined disciplines and topics and make them discoverable by adding relevant collection descriptors. Examples of such collections would be entomology, mammalogy, phycology and ornithology collections.
 
-- GRSciColl can help provide services that drive dashboards and reports
-- Survey protocols may be shared with other initiatives, helping increase the range of institutions that can be compared in a consistent manner
-- The results of previous surveys become more visible and may reduce effort spent, or the need for more surveys to be conducted
+One avenue to explore to improve the representation of these collections is to extract collections mentioned in publications such as this one: https://doi.org/10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020.
 
-Given the feedback received, we will also explore how to make GRSciColl a place where surveys can converge and be updated. For example, we will try to answers questions like:
+Alongside this work, we would implement a vocabulary for the Latimer Core term objectClassificationName most likely based on the topics developed by DISSCO (see also this GitHub issue: https://github.com/gbif/vocabulary/issues/157).
 
-- For example, we will try to answers questions like: Can we make GRSciColl a place to collect survey results by combining the data schema review and the upload of collection descriptors?
-- Should/can we and how to make surveys editable?
-- Answering those questions will help shape the roadmap for the following year.
+## 4.   Facilitate linking literature to GRSciColl
 
-## 4. A new user interface for GRSciColl
+Collections are often cited in publications but not always in a standardized manner. It might later be difficult to link a collection to its citation.
 
-The public interface of GRSciColl is limited in capabilities, offering less than the management interface and what is possible using the GBIF Hosted Portal software, such as the DiSSCo UK site. We intend to replace the existing GRSciColl site with a deployment of a hosted portal, enhanced with new features, such as maps for institutions, and clear explanatory text for users and data managers. Work on this has begun and can be seen on the development site.
+We will work with the community and journals, when possible, to agree on best practice for citation of collections. The goal is to facilitate citing a collection and linking specimens coming from PLAZI processed publications to GRSciColl.
 
-## 5. Establish mechanism for regular community updates
+A second aspect of this work will be to set up guidelines for institutions who wish to share bibliographic references and citations of their collections on GRSciColl.
 
-As the community of GRSciColl editors and users is growing, we want to offer a place where we can communicate updates, feedback and discuss improvements for the system. There is already an informal mailing list for GRSciColl mediators and other interested parties. We think that regular virtual meetups would be a great way to exchange more interactively. We aim to have meetings every four months for a year and assess whether the frequency and format of those meetings is adequate.