<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hello all<br>
    I agree with Rob. I've actually been doing a lot of thinking about
    this sort of thing (2nd point). I am definitely "in" for any attempt
    to organize meetings and funding.<br>
    anne<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/23/2014 8:51 AM, Robert Guralnick
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CADAgxGU0pZB3ZxTCrUczcqaT9tfATCmk5j9jHW8hsrh5=YH8aQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><br>
        </div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">&nbsp;
          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. &nbsp;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).</div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><br
            class="">
          1) &nbsp;To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism
          addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor).
          &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I feel
          that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair
          amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. &nbsp;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). &nbsp;I just can't see why we
          need it at this point.</div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><br>
        </div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">2)
          &nbsp;Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making.
          &nbsp;The larger question is "what to do". &nbsp;Here is a thought. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Why not
          reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC
          kinds of activities together more firmly. &nbsp;We could open those
          meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC,
          while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;We clearly have
          the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet
          more regularly than once a year. &nbsp;If there is interest, I am
          willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.&nbsp;</div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><br>
        </div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">Best,
          Rob</div>
        <div
          style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px">
          <br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve
          Baskauf <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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]. &nbsp;If<br>
            I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would
            fall in<br>
            sections 3.3 or 3.4. &nbsp;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). &nbsp; 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). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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". &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not?
            &nbsp;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<br>
            <div>
              <div class="h5"><br>
                joel sachs wrote:<br>
                &gt; Hi John,<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt; On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; Hi Joel,<br>
                &gt;&gt; Is this meant to call everyone's attention to
                the issues?<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt; Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My
                understaning of the process<br>
                &gt; for changing the standard is that proposals are
                entered into the Issue<br>
                &gt; Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public
                comment, followed by<br>
                &gt; the editor bringing the proposals to the executive
                for ratification.<br>
                &gt; So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be
                notified prior to<br>
                &gt; ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as
                much as I want to see<br>
                &gt; our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen
                under the radar, and<br>
                &gt; so thought it made sense to inform the list.<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; To elicit further<br>
                &gt;&gt; commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for
                action?<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; I suspect it is to put forward your positions
                on issue 205. If that is<br>
                &gt;&gt; correct, I propose bringing those positions
                here for discussion.<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt; I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but
                would prefer not to<br>
                &gt; lead off with that. My questions and suggestions
                regarding the<br>
                &gt; proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as
                our proposal to<br>
                &gt; deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the
                phrase "The<br>
                &gt; category of information pertaining to" from the
                definitions of the dwc<br>
                &gt; classes.<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt; Cheers,<br>
                &gt; Joel.<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; Cheers,<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; John<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs
                &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu">jsachs@csee.umbc.edu</a>&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hi Everyone,<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I&#8217;d like to direct everyone&#8217;s attention
                to issues 204 - 226 in<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These
                issues describe<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; proposed changes to the Darwin Core
                standard, and were entered<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; back in January in follow up to the
                Documenting Darwin Core<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; workshop held at TDWG 2013. These
                proposals reflect what the<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; organizers of that workshop believe to be
                the consensus that was<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; reached during the workshop&#8217;s four
                sessions in Florence.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The background for this is that, for some
                time, a number of<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; TDWGers have been working towards an
                applicability statement to<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; provide guidance on expressing Darwin
                Core data using RDF. In<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the course of this work, it became
                apparent that the semantics<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of Darwin Core itself needed a slight
                re-think, in order to be<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; usable on the semantic web. The goal was
                to be<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce
                and re-define terms in a<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; way that does not affect the meaning of
                existing Darwin Core<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; spreadsheet data, but which provides the
                semantic grounding<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; necessary for meaningful RDF. I think
                this goal has, for the<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; most part, been realized. If you have
                examples to the contrary,<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; please share them.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of
                the proposals in Issue<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the
                introduction of a class<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to represent the taxonomically homogenous
                units that are<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; described in Darwin Core occurrence data)
                was contentious,<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; primarily because we disagreed on a good
                name for the class.<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (&#8220;We&#8221; refers to the ad-hoc group that
                worked on translating the<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; notes from the workshop into concrete
                proposals - John<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus D&ouml;ring,
                Rich Pyle, Tim<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve
                Baskauf, Gregor<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hagedorn, and myself.) I&#8217;ve mentioned my
                own concerns as a<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; comment on that issue.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is one proposal that had the
                support of the group, but<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; that is not yet entered into the Issue
                Tracker - the deprecation<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for
                this proposal is that<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood
                and inconsistently<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; used, coupled with the fact that GBIF
                currently uses<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; basisOfRecord with the semantics of the
                (to be proposed)<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have
                held back on proposing<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "hasEvidence", as there remain some
                unresolved issues regarding<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; how it would be used. This will likely be
                left as future work,<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Many thanks to all who participated in
                the workshop, and to all<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; who take the time to review its outcomes.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Joel.<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 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" -&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Sort Down" to see in order]<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
                _______________________________________________<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; tdwg-content mailing list<br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
                &gt;&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <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>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                &gt;&gt;<br>
                <br>
              </div>
            </div>
            --<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 &nbsp;37235-1634, &nbsp;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" value="+16153434582">(615)
              343-4582</a>, &nbsp;fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="tel:%28615%29%20322-4942" value="+16153224942">(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><br>
            <div class="HOEnZb">
              <div class="h5"><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><br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Anne E. Thessen, Ph.D.
The Data Detektiv, Owner and Founder
Ronin Institute, Research Scholar
443.225.9185</pre>
  </body>
</html>