<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Peter,<div><br></div><div>We had a release date to meet with the IPT, so we used the "new" DarwinCore as it was submitted to the peer review for the release candidate 1.0 version you just downloaded. When DwC is ratified, we will modify the IPT to support it.</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, John W. who is leading the DwC standard along with his developers, will also be contributing to the IPT codebase during 2009.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div><div><br><div><div>On 11 May 2009, at 22:15, Peter DeVries wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Very Cool and Thanks,<div><br></div><div>I downloaded <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">(<a href="http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 204); ">http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/</a>) </span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">and got it working on one of my test machines.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></div><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Is there a plan to move or not move this to the new DarwinCore?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Thanks!</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Pete</span></div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Tim Robertson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:trobertson@gbif.org">trobertson@gbif.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi Peter,<br> <br> Just to expand on what Donald has written here:<br> <div class="im"><br> > My current thinking is that we should offer this as a service which<br> > can both be executed during harvesting and also as a stand-alone<br> > service for which users can submit a batch of Darwin Core-style<br> > records (probably tab-delimited) and get back a report for whichever<br> > set of tests or value-add operations they choose. This could help<br> > providers with data cleaning even before they share their data (and<br> > also could help them to make sure there are no known sensitivity<br> > issues around their data). Such a service could be extended more or<br> > less indefinitely to report more and more aspects of interest. One<br> > of the major options could be to cross-reference records to accepted<br> > taxonomic authorities (via LSIDs or other identifiers).<br> <br> </div>GBIF recently launched an early release of a biodiversity data<br> publishing tool (<a href="http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/gbif-providertoolkit/</a>) which<br> allows for serving of occurrence and species oriented data, in a "star<br> schema" format with Darwin Core as the core of the star. This tool<br> has an embedded database, which allows for serving of text files (csv,<br> tab delimited etc) and also the ability to sit in front of an existing<br> database to offer DwC through a complete archive, TAPIR and WFS,WMS<br> services. As you publish data through this tool, it currently does<br> very basic type checking of input data, and creates "annotations" on<br> the records that have issue (e.g. <a href="http://ipt.gbif.org/annotations.html?resource_id=11" target="_blank">http://ipt.gbif.org/annotations.html?resource_id=11</a>)<br> . As the tool matures in the coming months, we plan to open up an API<br> so that data provides can call external services and have them push<br> back annotations - e.g. check my coordinates, check my names with IPNI<br> etc. By publishing the complete dataset as an "archive" (a zipped<br> dump with an xml file describing the columns, <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/text/index.htm" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/text/index.htm</a><br> as Donald mentions) the technical threshold is reduced to a minimum<br> for the data transfer to implement such a quality service, while also<br> ensuring decent harvesting performance. It is in the current GBIF<br> workplan to register such quality services in the GBIF registry which<br> is undergoing development now, so that they may be discovered and used<br> by all, including the GBIF publishing toolkit, and portals. By doing<br> this, the roles of checking data, or implementing quality services are<br> not centralised in a GBIF portal, but can be used by the data owner<br> before sharing with GBIF or other networks.<br> <br> Additionally, by allowing for remote annotations, we can aim to<br> ultimately push back all feedback from the GBIF portal (or others)<br> into the publishing tools as opposed to through email as is the<br> current feedback mechanism - this is related to other topics such as<br> uniquely identifying resources as they are shared through various<br> networks for example. It would then be trivial to have (for example)<br> a google map with a clickable point which opens the details holding a<br> link "this record has bad coordinates", or a form to fill in.<br> Feedback could take the form of free text or perhaps even better, as<br> "structured annotations" where possible (this record would be correct<br> if the isoCountryCode was "DE") which could then be automatically<br> removed should the source be updated to meet the annotation criteria.<br> <br> Best wishes,<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Tim<br> </font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> <br> <br> <br> ><br> ><br> > Best wishes,<br> ><br> > Donald<br> ><br> ><br> > Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of Living Australia<br> > CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601<br> > Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208<br> > Email: <a href="mailto:Donald.Hobern@csiro.au">Donald.Hobern@csiro.au</a><br> > Web: <a href="http://www.ala.org.au/" target="_blank">http://www.ala.org.au/</a><br> ><br> ><br> > -----Original Message-----<br> > Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 19:23:32 -0500<br> > From: Peter DeVries <<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>><br> > Subject: [tdwg] Ideas on having Harvesters like GBIF clean, flag<br> > inconsistencies, and add additional value to the data<br> > To: <a href="mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg@lists.tdwg.org</a><br> > Message-ID:<br> > <<a href="mailto:3833bf630905081723l2f1d5369je8af6b0e4a26324d@mail.gmail.com">3833bf630905081723l2f1d5369je8af6b0e4a26324d@mail.gmail.com</a>><br> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br> ><br> > Arthur Chapman sent me some good comments regarding Datums etc.<br> > The discussion made me realize that there may be a need for two<br> > types of<br> > formats. One for the providers and a second one that is output by the<br> > harvesting service.<br> ><br> > This is because the needs and abilities of the data providers are<br> > different<br> > than the needs and abilities of those who would like to consume the<br> > data.<br> ><br> > Consumers, who analyze and map the data, would like something that<br> > is easy<br> > to process, standardized and as as error free as as possible.<br> ><br> > It could work in the following way.<br> ><br> > Data harvesters, like GBIF, collect the records. Run them through<br> > cleaning algorithms that check attributes including that the lat and<br> > long<br> > actually match the location described.<br> ><br> > These harvesters would then expose this cleaned data via XML and RDF<br> > with<br> > tags that flag possible inconsistencies. The harvesters would also<br> > add a<br> > field for the lat and long in WGS84 if the original record contains<br> > a valid<br> > Datum. Those records without a Datum would still be exposed but the<br> > added<br> > geo:latitude and geo:longitude fields would be empty.<br> ><br> > I can imagine that that data uploaded to GBIF and other harvester<br> > services<br> > will be replete with typo's and inconsistencies that will frustrate<br> > people<br> > trying to analyze or simply map the data, the harvester services<br> > could add<br> > value by minimizing these frustrations.<br> ><br> > Originally, it seemed that a global service should standardize on a<br> > global<br> > Datum like WGS84. After all, we have standardized on meters?<br> > However, after<br> > discussing this with Arthur, I realize that this is not possible for a<br> > number of reasons. That said, I think the data would be much more<br> > valuable<br> > and less likely to be misinterpreted if if a version of it was<br> > available in<br> > WGS84. This solution would eventually encourage data providers to<br> > understand<br> > what a Datum is and include it in their data. It would also help<br> > solve a<br> > number of other data integration problems.<br> ><br> > Respectfully,<br> ><br> > Pete<br> > _______________________________________________<br> > tdwg mailing list<br> > <a href="mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg@lists.tdwg.org</a><br> > <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg</a><br> ><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> tdwg mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:tdwg@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg@lists.tdwg.org</a><br> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br> 1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br> </div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>