[tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

[John Wieczorek]

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in
human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as
source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve
multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we
would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be
necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I
would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of
this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples
would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on
controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments
as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on
this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate
> annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that
> is necessary for DwC at this juncture.
>
> Ramona
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.
> Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona
> Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona
> Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request at lists.tdwg.org>
> wrote:
>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100
>> From: John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
>> Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content
>>         recommendations to comments
>> To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=
>> YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin
>> Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the
>> definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of
>> content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin
>> Core
>> issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.
>>
>> The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term
>> are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently
>> in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for
>> reference.
>>
>> This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to
>> recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will
>> leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless
>> further discussion arises resulting in amendments.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we
>> would
>> like to move to comments:
>>
>> datasetID
>> occurrenceID
>> sex
>> lifeStage
>> reproductiveCondition
>> behavior
>> establishmentMeans
>> occurrenceStatus
>> organismID
>> organismScope
>> materialSampleID
>> eventID
>> eventDate
>> eventTime
>> locationID
>> higherGeographyID
>> continent
>> waterBody
>> islandGroup
>> island
>> country
>> countryCode
>> municipality
>> locality
>> minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
>> maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
>> locationAccordingTo
>> decimalLatitude
>> decimalLongitude
>> geodeticDatum
>> coordinateUncertaintyInMeters
>> pointRadiusSpatialFit
>> verbatimCoordinates
>> verbatimLatitude
>> verbatimLongitude
>> verbatimCoordinateSystem
>> verbatimSRS
>> footprintWKT
>> footprintSRS
>> footprintSpatialFit
>> georeferencedDate
>> georeferenceVerificationStatus
>> geologicalContextID
>> identificationID
>> dateIdentified
>> identificationVerificationStatus
>> taxonID
>> scientificName
>> subgenus
>> taxonRank
>> nomenclaturalCode
>> taxonomicStatus
>> measurementID
>> measurementType
>> measurementUnit
>> measurementDeterminedDate
>> relationshipOfResource
>> relationshipEstablishedDate
>>
>> while the following terms already have the recommendations in the
>> comments:
>>
>> institutionID
>> collectionID
>> basisOfRecord
>> dynamicProperties
>> recordedBy
>> preparations
>> disposition
>> associatedMedia
>> associatedReferences
>> associatedSequences
>> associatedTaxa
>> otherCatalogNumbers
>> associatedOccurrences
>> associatedOrganisms
>> previousIdentifications
>> higherGeography
>> georeferencedBy
>> georeferenceSources
>> typeStatus
>> identifiedBy
>> identificationReferences
>> higherClassification
>> measurementDeterminedBy
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150119/38ca5b70/attachment-0001.html
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150205/e057f7bd/attachment.html