<div dir="ltr">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.<br><br>Ramona<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------<br>Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.<br>Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona<br>Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona<br>Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden</div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100<br>
From: John Wieczorek <<a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu">tuco@berkeley.edu</a>><br>
Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content<br>
recommendations to comments<br>
To: TDWG Content Mailing List <<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=<a href="mailto:YE%2B-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com">YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin<br>
Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the<br>
definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of<br>
content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core<br>
issue tracker as <a href="https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26" target="_blank">https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26</a>.<br>
<br>
The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term<br>
are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently<br>
in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for<br>
reference.<br>
<br>
This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to<br>
recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will<br>
leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless<br>
further discussion arises resulting in amendments.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<br>
The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would<br>
like to move to comments:<br>
<br>
datasetID<br>
occurrenceID<br>
sex<br>
lifeStage<br>
reproductiveCondition<br>
behavior<br>
establishmentMeans<br>
occurrenceStatus<br>
organismID<br>
organismScope<br>
materialSampleID<br>
eventID<br>
eventDate<br>
eventTime<br>
locationID<br>
higherGeographyID<br>
continent<br>
waterBody<br>
islandGroup<br>
island<br>
country<br>
countryCode<br>
municipality<br>
locality<br>
minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters<br>
maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters<br>
locationAccordingTo<br>
decimalLatitude<br>
decimalLongitude<br>
geodeticDatum<br>
coordinateUncertaintyInMeters<br>
pointRadiusSpatialFit<br>
verbatimCoordinates<br>
verbatimLatitude<br>
verbatimLongitude<br>
verbatimCoordinateSystem<br>
verbatimSRS<br>
footprintWKT<br>
footprintSRS<br>
footprintSpatialFit<br>
georeferencedDate<br>
georeferenceVerificationStatus<br>
geologicalContextID<br>
identificationID<br>
dateIdentified<br>
identificationVerificationStatus<br>
taxonID<br>
scientificName<br>
subgenus<br>
taxonRank<br>
nomenclaturalCode<br>
taxonomicStatus<br>
measurementID<br>
measurementType<br>
measurementUnit<br>
measurementDeterminedDate<br>
relationshipOfResource<br>
relationshipEstablishedDate<br>
<br>
while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:<br>
<br>
institutionID<br>
collectionID<br>
basisOfRecord<br>
dynamicProperties<br>
recordedBy<br>
preparations<br>
disposition<br>
associatedMedia<br>
associatedReferences<br>
associatedSequences<br>
associatedTaxa<br>
otherCatalogNumbers<br>
associatedOccurrences<br>
associatedOrganisms<br>
previousIdentifications<br>
higherGeography<br>
georeferencedBy<br>
georeferenceSources<br>
typeStatus<br>
identifiedBy<br>
identificationReferences<br>
higherClassification<br>
measurementDeterminedBy<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150119/38ca5b70/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150119/38ca5b70/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div></div></div>