Thanks Tim, this clarifies a great deal.
Measures to make it clear that the URNs (wherever they appear, e.g. on documentation pages, lists...) used by legacy systems are not to be understood as resolvable or under the control/custodianship of the GSC would help.
While technically valid, prefixing URNs with HTTP does indeed set a false expectation - anything that can mitigate that would be appreciated.
On the GSC and TDWG side however, it would be very interesting to find out how to do this more sustainably by, e.g., sharing vocabulary files with all the metadata needed to, e.g., map to ontologies, qualify terms with comments, include provenance data, etc
On 22/06/2021 17:18, Tim Robertson wrote:
Thanks, Pier
Just for a bit of background - you're assuming these are IRIs, but the DwC-A work was all designed at a time when URNs were common and expectations of resolvability weren't as high as today. The original design was really just to ensure a globally unique URN was used.
I think the concerns you raise are valid, and especially with the current intent to achieve resolvability for all the w3id.org/... terms. We do need a URN though, and I understand there isn't an intention to make resolvable terms for these concepts. The rs.gbif.org namespace has been used for this kind of thing in the past, which might be an alternative option to lower expectations.
Thanks, Tim
On 22/06/2021, 16.02, "dwc-mixs on behalf of Pier Luigi Buttigieg" <dwc-mixs-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of pier.buttigieg@awi.de> wrote:
Dear TG, Dear Ramona (GSC CIG), Chris, Bill, In our DwC-MIxS mapping activity, we noted a practice to support the IPT to generate "picklists" (for drop-down menus etc) by adding extensions to IRIs. This was suggested as a means to link the values to keys in terminology-focused fields. You can see the link to the "picklists" in the tracker: https://github.com/tdwg/gbwg/tree/main/dwc-mixs/dwc#vocabularies An example is available in [1] and looks like: dc:URI='https://w3id.org/gensc/terms/MIXS:0000005/contigs' I'm not quite sure about this and would like your input. To me, it seems like a very strange way to modify an identifier *issued by another standards group* in order to help a tool generate dropdown menu. It essential creates a false impression that there's something standardised on the other end of that IRI that may or may not be the case. Best, Pier Luigi [1] https://github.com/tdwg/gbwg/blob/main/dwc-mixs/dwc/vocabulary/contam_screen_input.xml -- https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4366-3088 _______________________________________________ dwc-mixs mailing list dwc-mixs@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/dwc-mixs