<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the
context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the
problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of
those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work
necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working
group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by
many months because nobody has made administrative decisions
necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more
volunteer hours to fix that problem.<br>
<br>
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary
management is a little more complicated. But again a group of
volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the
VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations -
accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or
whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of
volunteer time. <br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:059599138B8E5E4F9F9027312574923080981B7E@MBGMail02.mobot.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG
Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg
Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in
Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity
between annual meetings has always been an issue. However,
a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in
the standards ratification process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
TDWG standards ratification process is described at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/">http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/</a>.
The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed
by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed
standard through expert and public reviews. The final
decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after
the reviews are completed and reported by the Review
Manager.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less
clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion
early on that standards should only be replaced, not
revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to
DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and
as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted
by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to
the Executive Committee after a period of public comment.
In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to
reference the proposed revisions along with some
summarization from John and the revisions were
discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual
conferences. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining
a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot
to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Robert Guralnick<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve Baskauf<br>
<b>Cc:</b> TDWG Content Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to
Darwin Core<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out
for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely
fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the
topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do
have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on
term issues and one on governance).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><br>
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a
DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I
ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my
thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really
about biocollections and material samples or
observations, making the specification of "individuals"
or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that
"individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair
amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really
deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is
there ephemerally within the context of the collecting
event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just
can't see why we need it at this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">2)
Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision
making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a
thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual)
meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek,
John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) ---
we haven't always come through but setting aside the
time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the
TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of
activities together more firmly. We could open those
meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues
with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its
growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am
not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the
context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network)
framework. We clearly have the need and such funding
could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than
once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to
consider the work needed to make this happen. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Best,
Rob<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve
Baskauf <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu"
target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for bringing these issues up,
Joel.<br>
<br>
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been
proposed should be<br>
handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change
policy [1]. If<br>
I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would
fall in<br>
sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine
existing terms<br>
(like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin
Core terms"<br>
(section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like<br>
dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term
declarations<br>
to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The
exact procedure<br>
in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a
functioning<br>
Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit
of the proposal<br>
and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for
comments<br>
(RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning
TAG, so John<br>
Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made
the call for a<br>
30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to
my knowledge.<br>
I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually
requires action by<br>
the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made
the final call<br>
since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.<br>
<br>
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on
this proposal.<br>
The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack
of<br>
consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me)
to be<br>
widespread support for these changes at the Documenting
Darwin Core<br>
workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the
discussions held in<br>
December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer
out the actual<br>
proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of
consensus about<br>
everything except for the name of the one class
(organism/individual).<br>
So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't
gone to public<br>
comment months ago.<br>
<br>
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly
languished<br>
for a year now, having already undergone numerous
revisions and having<br>
been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only
reason I<br>
haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it
would need to be<br>
revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted.
So lack of<br>
progress on the proposed term changes is holding up
progress on that as<br>
well.<br>
<br>
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards
maintenance process is<br>
broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all
of the TDWG<br>
technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core,
and any future<br>
ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions
at the last<br>
TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table
[4]. It was<br>
my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda
of the<br>
Executive. However, we are now nine month past that
meeting and I<br>
haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any
progress on this<br>
front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not?
I'm not sure<br>
anymore.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges"
target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges</a><br>
[2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in
the dwctype:<br>
namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate<br>
[3] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf"
target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf</a><br>
[4] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246"
target="_blank">http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246</a>
plus several in-person meetings<br>
at TDWG<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
joel sachs wrote:<br>
> Hi John,<br>
><br>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi Joel,<br>
>> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to
the issues?<br>
><br>
> Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My
understaning of the process<br>
> for changing the standard is that proposals are
entered into the Issue<br>
> Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public
comment, followed by<br>
> the editor bringing the proposals to the
executive for ratification.<br>
> So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be
notified prior to<br>
> ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as
much as I want to see<br>
> our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen
under the radar, and<br>
> so thought it made sense to inform the list.<br>
><br>
>> To elicit further<br>
>> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal
for action?<br>
>><br>
>> I suspect it is to put forward your positions
on issue 205. If that is<br>
>> correct, I propose bringing those positions
here for discussion.<br>
><br>
> I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205,
but would prefer not to<br>
> lead off with that. My questions and suggestions
regarding the<br>
> proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important
as our proposal to<br>
> deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove
the phrase "The<br>
> category of information pertaining to" from the
definitions of the dwc<br>
> classes.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Joel.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> John<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu">jsachs@csee.umbc.edu</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> Hi Everyone,<br>
>><br>
>> I’d like to direct everyone’s attention
to issues 204 - 226 in<br>
>> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1].
These issues describe<br>
>> proposed changes to the Darwin Core
standard, and were entered<br>
>> back in January in follow up to the
Documenting Darwin Core<br>
>> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These
proposals reflect what the<br>
>> organizers of that workshop believe to
be the consensus that was<br>
>> reached during the workshop’s four
sessions in Florence.<br>
>><br>
>> The background for this is that, for
some time, a number of<br>
>> TDWGers have been working towards an
applicability statement to<br>
>> provide guidance on expressing Darwin
Core data using RDF. In<br>
>> the course of this work, it became
apparent that the semantics<br>
>> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight
re-think, in order to be<br>
>> usable on the semantic web. The goal
was to be<br>
>> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce
and re-define terms in a<br>
>> way that does not affect the meaning of
existing Darwin Core<br>
>> spreadsheet data, but which provides
the semantic grounding<br>
>> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think
this goal has, for the<br>
>> most part, been realized. If you have
examples to the contrary,<br>
>> please share them.<br>
>><br>
>> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview
of the proposals in Issue<br>
>> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205
(the introduction of a class<br>
>> to represent the taxonomically
homogenous units that are<br>
>> described in Darwin Core occurrence
data) was contentious,<br>
>> primarily because we disagreed on a
good name for the class.<br>
>> (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that
worked on translating the<br>
>> notes from the workshop into concrete
proposals - John<br>
>> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus
Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim<br>
>> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp,
Steve Baskauf, Gregor<br>
>> Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned
my own concerns as a<br>
>> comment on that issue.<br>
>><br>
>> There is one proposal that had the
support of the group, but<br>
>> that is not yet entered into the Issue
Tracker - the deprecation<br>
>> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation
for this proposal is that<br>
>> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely
misunderstood and inconsistently<br>
>> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF
currently uses<br>
>> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the
(to be proposed)<br>
>> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have
held back on proposing<br>
>> "hasEvidence", as there remain some
unresolved issues regarding<br>
>> how it would be used. This will likely
be left as future work,<br>
>> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.<br>
>><br>
>> Many thanks to all who participated in
the workshop, and to all<br>
>> who take the time to review its
outcomes.<br>
>><br>
>> Joel.<br>
>><br>
>> 1. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list"
target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list</a>
["ID" -><br>
>> "Sort Down" to see in order]<br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content"
target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--<br>
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer<br>
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences<br>
<br>
postal mail address:<br>
PMB 351634<br>
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.<br>
<br>
delivery address:<br>
2125 Stevenson Center<br>
1161 21st Ave., S.<br>
Nashville, TN 37235<br>
<br>
office: 2128 Stevenson Center<br>
phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582">(615) 343-4582</a>,
fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28615%29%20322-4942">(615) 322-4942</a><br>
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to
look for it.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://vanderbilt.edu/trees" target="_blank">http://vanderbilt.edu/trees</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content"
target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 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) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vanderbilt.edu/trees">http://vanderbilt.edu/trees</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>