<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">
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).</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><br
class="">
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.</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)
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. </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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>></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]. 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<br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><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>
>><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 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" value="+16153434582">(615)
343-4582</a>, 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>