<div dir="ltr">While i agree that house cleaning is in order, I think it would be a big mistake to accept no new additions to the standard in the interim. <div><br></div><div>Perhaps a strategy is to shoot for a "major release" version (say with a target 1 year out) while continuing with current modifications to the existing standard.<br>
<div><div><br></div></div><div style>John</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM, joel sachs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu" target="_blank">jsachs@csee.umbc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
Darwin Core remains poorly documented, occasionally inconsistent, and<br>
frequently misunderstood. (Does anyone disagree with that<br>
characterization?) I believe this is one of the reasons we're seeing a<br>
proliferation of overlapping and sometimes incompatible ontologies<br>
building on Darwin Core terms.<br>
<br>
One of the suggestions that came up on the TDWG-RDF mailing list is to<br>
have a clean-up-a-thon/document-a-thon for TDWG namespaces and terms. I<br>
suggest that, until such a clean up of Darwin Core occurs, TDWG accept no<br>
additions to the Darwin Core standard. There are several examples in<br>
support of my claim that we're building on a shaky foundation - an obvious<br>
one is that, as Steve is currently pointing out, there is no consensus on<br>
what constitutes a Darwin Core occurrence. (Can anyone name an instance of<br>
the class "<a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence</a>"?)<br>
<br>
The clean-up-a-thon proposal was enthusiastically endorsed within the RDF<br>
group, but no one volunteered to organize it. I propose that we<br>
self-organize, and find a way to carve out two days at the coming meeting<br>
to hash out as much as we can, with a follow-on workshop if necessary. But<br>
first, I'd be interested to know - am I the only one who feels this way?<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Joel.<br>
<br>
p.s.<br>
I've said this before, but it bears repeating - Darwin Core is almost an<br>
excellent standard, and almost ideally suited to be the foundation for a<br>
semantic web for biodiversity informatics. I have great respect for those<br>
who were involved in its creation and continued curation - for their hard<br>
work, and clear thinking, and patience for people like me struggling to<br>
understand. But all that work, thought, and patience will be for naught,<br>
if the gyre is allowed to widen much further.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>John Deck<br>(541) 321-0689<br>
</div>