<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg ontology</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText927 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT face=Tahoma><STRONG>From:</STRONG> tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of John R. WIECZOREK<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 2009-04-24 8:58 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Roger Hyam<BR><B>Cc:</B> Technical Architecture Group mailing list<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg ontology<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<P><FONT size=2>Anything I should do on the DwC side in anticipation of harmony?<BR><BR><A href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#theterms">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#theterms</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>===========================================================</P>
<DIV dir=ltr>John,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>At some point, all or (most) of the DarwinCore terms need to be added to the TDWG ontology.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>But having said that, I also need to say that I'm uncomfortable with:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) The current state of the TDWG ontology (primarily the naming conventions; lets just use terms names), and our understanding of the role it plays in TDWG and how it will be managed (entry of terms, integration of terms into the conceptual [is-a / has-a] relationships to other terms); and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) the fact that the new DarwinCore straddles or overlaps the roles of an ontology and an application schema.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understood the past TAG roadmaps to indicate that we were adopting an approach in which the TDWG Ontology would be a repository for data concepts that are present in (or implied by) TDWG standards; and that real data transmission would be accomplished with application schemas. The ontology itself would not be a standard, but would be a tool that helps integrate standards. I thought our standards would be created to function as application schemas or components of application schemas (as in the DwC and its extensions). I am now pretty confused. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'd like to hear the rationale for combining taxonomic name/concept with organism occurrence. I haven't gone over all the existing docs, so apologies if I've missed that, but I think it's confusing that a (new) DarwinCore record could be either a taxonomic name or an organism occurrence, or maybe something else. Maybe I'm too attached to object orientation and just don't GET the semantic web, but it feels to me like we are stepping into squishy ground.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, I the the DCMI maintenance procedures are also more appropriately applied to the ontology than a TDWG standard. The existing process for ratifying TDWG standards and the procedure in the DwC seem to be pretty explicitly in conflict; one can change the other cannot (without becoming another thing).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is anyone else having these same trepidations? I don't think I've been as much of a Rip Van Winkle as Jim Croft, but I clearly missed some important shifts. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Stan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV></BODY></HTML>