<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><title>Re: [tdwg-tag] class design, generalization, L(O)D</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">On 11/15/10 11:19 AM, "Peter DeVries" <<a href="pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
[ ... ]<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">So in addition to failing to work within the standards of the larger informatics community TDWG*, is failing to demonstrate that it has a working, useful standard.<br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">[...]<br>
<br>
DarwinCore is not the only thing TDWG has done, but the DarwinCore is explicitly based on Dublin Core, both in content and in the DCMI approach to maintenance. More over, every TDWG effort in the last decade has been based on some kind of widely used internet standard (XML schema, for example). Are those not part of the larger informatics community?<br>
<br>
The second part of the statement is a very narrow opinion. GBIF provides access to more than 200 million organism occurrence records gathered from hundreds of providers, all using TDWG standards. Not working, not useful? Only if your definition of useful includes the qualifier “with semantic web technologies.” Yes, within the semantic web domain, we don’t have anything useful or working. <br>
<br>
I think the point of this discussion is to determine what demonstrations and supporting specifications would be appropriate and feasible in the near term. Then we need motivation for a herd of cats.<br>
<br>
-Stan<br>
<br>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>