<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5726" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I tend to agree with David ... but only to a
point.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Are we not discussing the equivalent here of database
normalization ... where two diametrically opposite opinions hold - fully
normalized and it don't work (performance issue) or fully de-normalized and it
don't work (integrity issues - accepting that a well designed UI can protect
database content (and integrity) from the user)? Here we have
DwC-with-extensions on the one hand and something like TCS/CDM? on the other. By
taxonomic information I assume we mean that a taxonomic opinion on a
name has been expressed (usually by a person). If so, the requirements are
fairly basic - name with nomenclatorLSID, status, who, when and where. It gets
complex, and it's what I do not think DwC supports, when everything in a
complex taxonomic opinion (homotypic names, heterotypic names, misapplications,
pro-parte synonyms etc) is placed in one 'object' - the equivalent of
recursive joins to go back to a database analogy.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In haste,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=289505913-27042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Paul</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>David
Remsen<BR><B>Sent:</B> 27 April 2009 14:47<BR><B>To:</B> Kevin
Richards<BR><B>Cc:</B> Technical Architecture Group mailing list;
exec@tdwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg
ontology<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Kevin, Can you tell me what the limitations are on being able to
exchange taxonomic information with the DwC terms? As far as I can tell,
you can exchange fairly complex taxonomic information short of
concept-to-concept relations and I find the DwC-with-extensions approach we are
using to exchanging information tied to taxa (not instances of taxa) to be a
nice and practical compromise between complexity and practicality. My
understanding is that the IPT can output TCS/RDF for those who want it.
I am personally very happy to see the DwC taxon terms added.
Finally I can provide format specifications that biologists can
understand.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>David Remsen</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Kevin Richards wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV ocsi="x">
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma color=#000000 size=2>I see the ontology as a
model of ALL (hopefully, eventually all) the data in our domain of
biodiversity informatics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>I would love to see it as a standard (at
the least it might give it a bit more clout).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>I agree that the ontology is useful to
tie other TDWG schemas together, using it as a core/master model. I
would be happy to see it used for ALL tasks within TDWG, but I understand
the usefulnes of the more specific schemas/standards - horses for
courses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>If I understand Stan here, I agree with
him about the dubious use of DwC for representing Taxon Concepts/Names.
As far as I know, it was really intended as a transfer standard for
observation records?? It contains very limited taxon information!
It really is not a overly difficult job to use a more suitable
schema/ontology. I think the popularity of Darwin Core is due to its
simplicity - and I wonder if what Roger is proposing will help with this - ie
an XML implementation of the ontology as well as an RDF version. This
will allow people to create very simple XML documents with reasonably
simple/flat data, eg an xml document of TaxonName entities, with perhaps
6 or 7 or so key fields - even simpler than DwC. :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Kevin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV id=divRpF910076 style="DIRECTION: ltr">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>[<A
href="mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Blum, Stan [<A
href="mailto:sblum@calacademy.org">sblum@calacademy.org</A>]<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Saturday, 25 April 2009 6:12
a.m.<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Technical
Architecture Group mailing list;<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="mailto:exec@tdwg.org">exec@tdwg.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms
inside tdwg ontology<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText927 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
face=Tahoma><STRONG>From:</STRONG><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>on behalf of John R.
WIECZOREK<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Fri
2009-04-24 8:58 AM<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Roger Hyam<BR><B>Cc:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Technical Architecture Group mailing
list<BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re:
[tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg
ontology<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><FONT face=Tahoma></FONT>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"><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"
target=_blank>http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#theterms</A><BR></FONT></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000
size=2>===========================================================</FONT></DIV><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr>John,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>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. <SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></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></DIV><BR>
<HR>
<FONT face=Arial color=green size=1>Please consider the environment before
printing this email<BR>Warning: This electronic message together with any
attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not
read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.<BR>The views expressed
in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</A><BR></FONT>_______________________________________________<BR>tdwg-tag
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</A><BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>New Page 1</title>
<p><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:Webdings;
color:green">P</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#339966"> </span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:green;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Think Green -
don't print this email unless you really need to<o:p>
</o:p>
</span></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1">************************************************************************<br>
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. <br>
<br>
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.<br>
<br>
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.<br>
<br>
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.<br>
<br>
**************************************************************************</font>
</p>
</BODY></HTML>