[tdwg-ncd] Re: Terminology version 2

Markus Döring m.doering at bgbm.org
Wed Jul 11 15:39:19 CEST 2007

I've been talking to Anton Güntsch about the use of NCD and the  
different proposals about controlled keywords.
We came to the conclusions that from an biological point of view we  
would need an easy way to enter and extract at least the information  
which collection is a herbarium, zoo, garden, aquarium, mineral  
Some terms are specialisations of broader terms we had (herbarium <  
specimen collection). We can model this in the ontology so that  
applications know that every herbarium is also a specimen collection  
(or "dead" collection as opposed to living collection?) and simply  
keep all terms in the schema list. Would that be an option? We will  
have all the broad terms and some frequently occuring  
specialisations. for example:

digital data   # what exactly is this? arent observations also data,  
maybe just a specialisation
   - herbarium
   - nat.hist.collection   # or how you call those dead animal  
collections in general?
living collection
   - garden
   - zoo
   - aquarium

The other option to know whether a collection is a herbarium is to  
say its a specimen collection and have a taxonomic indication of  
"plants". For this we would need a short list of very broad taxonomic  
terms. I think that would be very useful anyways. something along the  
lines of plants, animals, fungus, bacteria, viruses and minerals. And  
of course additionally the free taxonomic keywords list. Does this  
sound strange from a librarian point of view?


On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Döring, Markus wrote:

> I do like the idea of having a very short high level list for a first
> categorisation. I would like to add "Living collection" and maybe  
> also "DNA
> samples" or more generic "molecular samples" to the list though. So  
> we have
> dead specimens, living beings and some molecular (?) samples like  
> DNA, cell
> culture, proteins and alike. Well, cell cultures are not really  
> molecular
> samples. Anyone with a better term for this?
> Markus
> Am 09.07.2007 15:17 Uhr schrieb "Constance Rinaldo" unter
> <crinaldo at oeb.harvard.edu>:
>> Have we absolutely agreed to merge ctype and pfocus?  I still think
>> there is value in keeping them separate.  Carol had an idea about
>> Ctype having a few, high-level choices with pfocus as a modifier.
>> The two fields really are different, although it is easy to see how
>> they can be a bit confusing.  If we offer the right choices, though,
>> it will not be so confusing.  Carol suggested to me: <ctype> " should
>> become a very short, high level list - - only having: Archive,
>> Library, specimen/Object, Observation, Data/Information,
>> Representation/Facsimilie.  Then <pFocus> would be something of a
>> modifier. "
>> Can we still talk about this?  I am not convinced that merging them
>> is the best idea. It seems even more confusing to me.
>> ************************************************************
>> Constance Rinaldo, Librarian of the Ernst Mayr Library
>> Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
>> 26 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA  02138
>> voice: 617-495-4576; fax: 617-496-6838
>> email: crinaldo at fas.harvard.edu
>> http://library.mcz.harvard.edu
>> ************************************************************
>> "To a person uninstructed in natural history, his country or seaside
>> stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with wonderful works of
>> art, nine-tenths of which have their faces turned to the wall" Thomas
>> Henry Huxley
>> On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:28 AM, Neil Thomson wrote:
>>> Hi Carol,
>>> I'm happy that we have the right elements now and a good selection
>>> of terms within each.
>>> Just one comment on the collectionType terms - since they refer to
>>> collections, then maybe some of them should be in the plural? For
>>> example, image should be images. This wouldn't apply to all, for
>>> example event and expedition should remain as they are.
>>> Any other views?
>>> With thanks,
>>> Neil
>>> From: Butler, Carol [mailto:ButlerCR at si.edu]
>>> Sent: 06 July 2007 19:04
>>> To: Neil Thomson; Guenter.Waibel at rlg.org; Markus Döring; Barbara
>>> Mathe; Constance Rinaldo; Doug Holland; Wouter Addink; Ruud  
>>> Altenburg
>>> Subject: Terminology version 2
>>> Importance: High
>>> Hi All,
>>> Thanks for your comments.  I’ve attached version 2.  You’ll see
>>> that it collapses <primaryFocus> into <collectionType> (which we
>>> had in the past called “collection class”).  I included examples
>>> for the terms that correspond to this revised element.
>>> As we’re on a time schedule and need to agree on the property/
>>> elements so that Ruud and Wouter can proceed, would you please send
>>> me your final comments on 1) the Property Comment definitions, and
>>> 2) updated Terms, no later than the end of your day on Monday, July
>>> 9th? My recollection is that we needed to complete this review by
>>> July 10th.   I expect we may want to tune the term definitions and
>>> examples a bit, which Neil tells me can have a bit more time as
>>> long as the elements themselves are agreed.  If I don’t hear from
>>> you, I’ll conclude that you don’t have comments or edits on this
>>> version.
>>> I’ve also sent this to our wiki.
>>> Thanks!
>>> Carol

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list