[tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore and DublinCore usageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
Steve Baskauf
steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
Sun Nov 1 13:29:27 CET 2009
I hesitated to respond to this earlier because I am not up on what is
going on in the "observation" community of tdwg and how they define
things. However, I have a philosophical problem with saying that
HumanObservations and MachineObservations should be typed as
dcterm:type=dcmitype:Event. My problem stems from the way that we use
"observation" in English.
1. When a taxonomist conducts a field collecting trip (a dcterm:event)
at a certain time and place, we end up with a specimen
(dcterm:type=dcmitype:PhysicalObject, dwc:basisOfRecord="PhysicalSpecimen").
2. When a photographer conducts a photo shoot (a dcterm:event) at a
certain time and place, we end up with a still image
(dcterm:type=dcmitype:StillImage, dwc:basisOfRecord="StillImage").
3. When a birdwatcher conducts an observation (a dcterm:event) at a
certain time and place, we end up with an observation (dcterm:type=???,
dwc:basisOfRecord="HumanObservation").
In example 3, the problem is that we use the same word ("Observation")
for the act of observing and the product that we create when we
observe. We don't do this for other types of things that belong in the
dwc:recordClass = dwctype:Occurrence (i.e. examples 1 and 2). If you
look at the elements in the DwC class Occurrence, you see elements that
can describe the things that are created when we document the presence
of an individual, e.g. catalogNumber, preparations, sex, etc. If you
look at the elements in the Dwc class Event, you see elements related to
the act of creating, e.g. the time (eventDate), place (habitat), and
method (samplingProtocol). The use of the word Event to describe a DwC
class is true to the DCMI definition of Event: "Metadata for an event
provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the
purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an
event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop,
open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party,
conflagration." The examples given in the definition all indicate
things that happen, not the things that result from those happenings
(i.e. exhibitions, not exhibits; conference, not proceedings; battle,
not dead people; tea party, not tea; etc.).
As I look at the DCMI classes, the problem is that I don't think there
is one that describes observation (in the sense of an Occurrence, i.e.
the product that is created when we observe). So I think that the
appropriate thing in the case of observation is either to provide no
value for dcterm:type or to petition DCMI to create a class for
observations (if we can get them to understand the distinction that I'm
making between act and product). I do not think that the appropriate
thing is to call observations (sensu created product) something that
they are not. I have previously raised the question of "Why do we need
dcterms:type?". I do not think that the reason is to satisfy our need
to place all things into conceptual boxes. I think the reason is to let
a machine or user know what kinds of metadata to expect when they are
told that a record has a particular value for dcterms:type. Under that
rationale, if a record identifier is for an observation is being
resolved and a consuming application is told that the record has a
dcterm:type of Event, that application is going to be expecting metadata
about an act (time, place, and method), not metadata about a created
entity (catalog number, sex, or whatever types of things that you record
about an observation). It is better to tell the machine nothing than to
tell it to expect the wrong thing. While it is true that observations
have a time, place, and method of creation, PhysicalObjects and
StillImages also have a time, place, and method of their creation, yet
we do not class them as Events. Let's not put a round peg into a square
hole. Either leave the peg out or drill a round hole.
Steve Baskauf
John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> Found a moment to get back to this. There currently is no formal (that
> is, rdf) relation between observations and dcmitype:Event. In fact,
> there are no formal relations between recommended basisOfRecord values
> ("PreservedSpecimen", "StillImage", "HumanObservation") and any
> dcmitype terms (dcmitype:PhysicalObject, dcmitype:StillImage,
> dcmitype:Event). The former are string literals in a list that is
> recommended while the latter are the DC recommended Type Vocabulary
> for dcterms:type.
>
> So, if I was to publish a record for a human observation of a species
> in nature (a dwc:Occurrence), I would populate the terms as follow
> (note specifically the use of terms for type and recordClass and the
> use of a string for basisOfRecord):
>
> dcterms:type = dcmitype:Event
> dwc:basisOfRecord = "HumanObservation"
> dwc:recordClass = dwctype:Occurrence
>
> For your other example I would populate the terms similarly, with:
>
> dcterms:type = dcmitype:Event
> dwc:basisOfRecord = "MachineObservation"
> dwc:recordClass = dwctype:Occurrence
>
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
VU Station B 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list