[tdwg-tag] time and space namespaces in Darwin Core

Mon Aug 9 16:46:58 CEST 2010

The reason is simple, we want to help data publishers. It doesn't help data
publishers if they can't publish what they have - it would mean there is no
room for data improvement tools. That would be sad. Worse, most people
haven't a clue what a datum is, or how it can ruin your whole day (or life,
in at least one sad case of a crashed helicopter in Patagonia). Given this
naiveté, people would simply put whatever geographic coordinates they have
into geo:lat/lon and no one would have any way to know that they are
incorrect.

Note that Darwin Core offers data publishers options to publish event
information with year, month, day, startDayOfYear, endDayOfYear, and
verbatimEventDate in addition to eventDate and eventTime - same philosophy.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Javier de la Torre <jatorre at gmail.com>wrote:

> I am not sure I understand why we can not set DWC fields to conform to
> WGS84 and then use what everybody else is using.
>
> For example in eventDate DWC conforms to ISO 8601, why dont we do the same
> for location... it would allow to simplify it quite a lot and be more
> compliant with other standards-existing apps, etc.
>
> Just an idea.
>
> *Javier de la Torre*
> *www.vizzuality.com*
>
> On Aug 9, 2010, at 4:13 PM, John Wieczorek wrote:
>
> The partially good news is that if enough information (dwc:geodeticDatum)
> is given in a Darwin Core-based record, geo:lat/lon can be determined from
> it. More disturbing to me is that anyone would think geo:lat/lon alone is
> sufficient for any application, as it carries no notion of uncertainty and
> therefore fitness for use. Add dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters (or even
> dwc:coordinatePrecision if you must) to the mix and I would be much happier.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:26 PM, <Garry.Jolley-Rogers at csiro.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>        Thanks. Had this aside to read in detail later.  I think John is
>> right... As same value with different constraints mean different
>> interpretations are possible and seems to be the key thing. How are the
>> values to be interpreted.
>>
>> G
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 9 August 2010 4:12 PM
>> To: Alexander, Paul (PI, Black Mountain); Harvey, Paul.W (PI, Black
>> Mountain); Jolley-Rogers, Garry (PI, Black Mountain); Cawsey, Margaret (CES,
>> Crace); Greg Whitbread
>> Cc: tuco at berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Fwd: [tdwg-tag] time and space namespaces in Darwin Core
>>
>> Did you catch this thread on tdwg-tag?  It is an almost exact mirror
>> of the conversations we have be having in the taxon profile space, but
>> involving the specimen locational data.
>>
>> >From John's comments it would appear he is not prepared to accept the
>> geo: and dwc: lat/long as 'exact match' because, although they are the
>> same values, they have different constraints (or more precisely one
>> one has a constraint and one doesn't).
>>
>> I wouldn't have picked it but this looks like a case for 'closematch'.
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
>> Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] time and space namespaces in Darwin Core
>> To: joel sachs <jsachs at csee.umbc.edu>
>> Cc: tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com, tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
>>
>>
>> There is actually no equivalency between dwc:decimalLatitude and
>> geo:lat  because geo:lat is specified to represent the latitude in the
>> WGS84 spatial reference system and dwc:decimalLatitude has no such
>> such restriction.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:08 AM, joel sachs <jsachs at csee.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>> >
>> > > Shouldn't the RDF for DwC link DwC:lat to geo:lat (using some subtype
>> > > or better yet equivalency relation)? And shouldn't hence Linked Data
>> > > browsers be able to use DwC:lat in the same way as geo:lat?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes. But no Linked Data browser I'm aware of applies
>> > owl:equivalentProperty assetions before rendering the data. (In fact,
>> most
>> > do no reasoning at all.) I agree that, whatever our default display,
>> > it should include the appropriate mapping statements, either via an
>> > rdfs:seeAlso or similar link, or directly in the document.
>> >
>> >
>> > Joel.
>> >
>> >
>> > >       -hilmar
>> > >
>> > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:01 AM, joel sachs wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> All,
>> > >>
>> > >> When representing observation records in RDF, there are advantages
>> > >> to using Dublin Core and Geo (http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
>> > >> wgs84_pos#)
>> > >> namespaces where possible. For example, if we use DC:date, and
>> > >> geo:lat, geo:long, instead of DwC:eventDate, DwC:lat, and DwC:long,
>> > >> then Linked Data browsers can automatically map the records, plot
>> > >> them on a timeline, etc.
>> > >>
>> > >> My question is: What are the disadvantages to doing this? (For
>> > >> example, is this going to break someone's DwC validator?)
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks -
>> > >> Joel.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > ===========================================================
>> > > : Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
>> > > ===========================================================
>> > >
>>
>> _________________
>> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
>> 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
>> of doubtful sanity.'
>>  - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)
>>
>> Please send URIs, not attachments:
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
>
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20100809/c00ec67e/attachment.html 