- tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

synonyms in DwC Archives
by Hilmar Lapp 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

I'm looking for recommendations on how best to put synonyms for taxon records into DwC Archive format. I'm assuming that these would go into an extension file. Do I have this right? What I'm having more trouble with is determining the right column term. there's dwc:vernacularName, which is also in the examples, but what about synonyms of different types that come with taxonomies (such as NCBI's) or that result from merging taxonomies. There isn't an obvious candidate in DwC, and the list at http://rs.gbif.org/core/dwc_taxon.xmldoesn't have a suggestion either that would seem pertinent. Any suggestions, pointers to documentation or examples? -hilmar -- Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io

10 18

why is relationshipOfResource defined as the inverse of what one would expect?
by Hilmar Lapp 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

Among the ResourceRelationship terms in DwC, we have the following key properties denoting subject and object of the asserted relationship: resourceID - "An identifier for the resource that is the subject of the relationship." relatedResourceID - "An identifier for a related resource (the object, rather than the subject of the relationship)." Then there is relationshipOfResource, which oddly and confusingly is defined as the inverse of a property relating subject to object: "The relationship of the resource identified by relatedResourceID to the subject (optionally identified by the resourceID)." The comment gives examples that do nothing to suggest that the definition has this backwards, or to disambiguate: "Examples: "duplicate of", "mother of", "endoparasite of", "host to", "sibling of", "valid synonym of", "located within"." The corresponding wiki page does not offer further clarification: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/ResourceRelationship There is also a page on the TDWG-RDF wiki (which declares itself as obsolete, yet links to itself for further information): https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/ResourceRelationship The example on this page (Table 1) seems to assume (or is fooled or confused into thinking) that relationshipOfResource is not relating object to subject, but as one would expect subject to object. So is the definition wrong? And if it's not, why was the relationship chosen to point in the inverse direction of what one would expect? -hilmar -- Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io

1 0

Usage of elevation, depth & distanceAboveSurface
by Markus Döring 15 Feb '14

15 Feb '14

Hi all, I am notoriously confused how to use the dwc terms that define the vertical position of a location. For each of elevation, depth and distanceAboveSurface there is a minimum and maximum term defined. Taking min/max aside, how do those 3 terms play together? From my common understanding elevation refers to the vertical position of the location relative to a reference point, usually the sea level. With negative values for places below the sea. Wikipedia seems to follow the same definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation The Darwin Core definition is a bit lose, but close: "The lower limit of the range of elevation (altitude, usually above sea level), in meters." The use of depth in that view is then only to give an idea how far below the (water) surface the location is (think pressure) - especially for places not in the sea like lakes. In the case of locations under the sea depth should then always be the negated value of elevation, is that true? I can see the use of the third term distanceAboveSurface from the drilling core in the only example given, but that is rather exotic. Would it not replace the term depth as a more generic version unrelated to water, for example to refer to locations up in trees? Would a use of the terms like this be correct? (A) a fish found 800m below the sea: dwc:minElevationInMeters = -800 dwc:minDepthInMeters = 800 dwc:minDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters = -800 (B) a frog found on a tree, 20m above the ground which grows in 760m above the sea (measured from the ground): dwc:minElevationInMeters = 780 dwc:minDepthInMeters = dwc:minDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters = 20 When reading the definition for minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters I doubt my understanding is correct and instead elevation is used as the primary reference point on top of which depth and then distanceAboveSurface is added: "The lesser distance in a range of distance from a reference surface in the vertical direction, in meters. Use positive values for locations above the surface, negative values for locations below. If depth measures are given, the reference surface is the location given by the depth, otherwise the reference surface is the location given by the elevation." It would be good to have that documented a bit more explicitly. Any advice appreciated. best, Markus

3 2

dwc:genus & the canonical name
by Markus Döring 14 Feb '14

14 Feb '14

Hi all, we are currently improving our webservices at GBIF and do hit again the issue about whether dwc:genus represents the genus of the accepted or actually applied scientificName. So far GBIF has used the DWC definition and used dwc:genus as the genus the name had been classified into, i.e. the genus of the accepted name in case of synonyms. We would like to continue with that definition, but there had been requests to also expose the actual parsed name and would like to adopt the previously proposed but never ratified terms dwc:genericName and dwc:infragenericEpithet for this. See http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2012-March/002882.html for a quick summary of the previous discussions and the issue itself at google code: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151. As a backup to the proposal, i4Life / Catalogue of Life are also already using the newly proposed terms in their dwca format. Can we get an agreement to add those 2 terms to Darwin Core? best, Markus PS: It might be a good oppertunity to also add dwc:strain and dwc:cultivarEpithet https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=144 https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=141

2 3

Apply now: Hackathon at the Netherlands Natural History Museum
by Rutger Vos 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Dear colleagues, Recent years have seen a surge in projects that produce large volumes of biodiversity data. Examples of these are structured, machine-readable data as extracted from digitised heritage biodiversity literature, species occurrence data, comparative data for phylogenetics, taxonomies, digitised collection specimens, and so on. These data can be represented in a variety of standards-compliant interchange formats (using XML, RDF, JSON, etc.) making them amenable to processing by generic, open source "data enrichment" workflows. The idea is simple - enrich biodiversity data with meaningful links to related resources, such as links from named locations to standardized georeferences, links from taxon names to taxon concept URIs, links from characters and traits to trait ontologies, links to relevant images, semantic descriptions of data provenance, links to publications, and so on. To this end, we would like to invite you to the "Data enrichment hackathon" that will take place March 17th - 21st, 2014 at the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, in Leiden, the Netherlands. The hackathon will bring together domain experts in biodiversity informatics from a variety of subdisciplines to be creative with biodiversity data and to write code. The end result will be open source tooling that will allow stakeholders to re-use and enhance biodiversity knowledge. We think that such tooling might include tools that add properties to data; that convert between formats, expanded controlled vocabularies or ontologies; data integrators; annotations and query tools, etc. The hackathon is organised with the support of Naturalis [1] in the scope of the pro-iBiosphere project[2], an FP7 e-infrastructure project that focuses on making biodiversity data and information (now entrapped in literature) open, linked and digital. pro-iBiosphere has the vision of implementing an Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS), i.e. an integration platform that will allow to produce Biotas (i.e. Floras, Faunas, Mycotas and other revisionary taxonomic literature) of the future in a flexible semantically-driven online environment. We would very much appreciate if you can state your intent to participate by the 14th of February 2014 at the latest. In order to facilitate the organisation of the event and be aware of your interests and specialties please fill in a brief questionnaire [3]. We have limited funding to support the participation and travel costs of a number of participants. In case you need funding to join the Hackathon, please indicate this in your response to the questionnaire. If you are not able to participate but have suggestions for other colleagues that could join the hackathon, please let us know. The agenda, accommodation and other relevant information is available on our wiki[4]. For any additional question please email Rutger.Vos(a)naturalis.nl or Soraya.Sierra(a)naturalis.nl. We look forward to seeing you in Leiden! With best regards, Rutger Vos and Soraya Sierra [1] http://www.naturalis.nl [2] http://www.pro-ibiosphere.eu/[3] http://tinyurl.com/NBCDataHackForm [4] http://wiki.pro-ibiosphere.eu/wiki/Data_enrichment_hackathon,_March_17-21_2…

1 0

Fwd: Environmentally related information
by Annett P 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <tdwg-content-owner(a)lists.tdwg.org> Date: 15 Jan 2014 07:56 Subject: Environmentally related information To: <ap16709(a)gmail.com> Cc: You need to be subscribed to this mailing list in order to post messages ---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ---------- From: Annett P <ap16709(a)gmail.com> To: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:56:40 +0100 Subject: Environmentally related information I was wondering whether it has been attempted/it is feasible to use the standards of observations and measurements ( http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/om) to describe sampling procedure and environmental context of a species instead of extending DwC with terms? Any hint is very much appreciated. Best regards Annett

1 0

New Term Request - typifiedName
by John Wieczorek 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Dear all, This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new term, typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core issue tracker at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197. The justification given for inclusion of the term is: "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific name that is typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how dwc:typeStatus has been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the need to express this, but it should better be handled with a term on its own and leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The term name itself is also used by ABCD: http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603." The proposal is as follows: Definition: The scientific name that is based on the type specimen. Comment: It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen. Refines: Has Domain: Has Range: Replaces: ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignations/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName

8 11

dcterms:rights, dcterms:accessRights, and dcterms:license in Darwin Core
by John Wieczorek 29 Dec '13

29 Dec '13

Dear all, Bob Morris recently submitted an issue [1] to the Darwin Core code site showing a potential ambiguity in the inclusion from Dublin Core of both dcterms:rights and dcterms:accessRights in the Simple Darwin Core schema [2]. The ambiguity arises from the fact that dcterms:accessRights is actually a subclass of dcterms:rights. Looking at the Darwin Core documentation about the use of these terms, I noticed that dcterms:rights [3] suggests a license ("http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/") as an example. I think this example is an inappropriate use for the term and instead is an example of a dcterms:license. I think it would be a good idea to add dcterms:license to the list of terms promoted by Darwin Core, especially after reading Peter Desmet's blog posts [4, 5]. If license was indeed the intent for including dcterms:rights in the first place, then perhaps it can be deprecated, leaving only its subtype dcterms:accessRights. Discussion welcome, so that I know whether to submit an issue for these changes to the Darwin Core. Thanks, John [1] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=196 [2] https://darwincore.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd [3] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dcterms:rights [4] http://peterdesmet.com/posts/illegal-bullfrogs.html [5] http://www.canadensys.net/2012/why-we-should-publish-our-data-under-cc0

4 4

Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
by Richard Pyle 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Yes, I understand that as I mentioned. But what about my question regarding the same specimen being used to typify multiple taxa? Rich From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:16 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: John R. Wieczorek; TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName I endorse Markus proposal enthusiastically. What Rich writes is appropriate if you use DwC in a structured way, with Identification instances that support a 1:n relation between specimen and identification instances. However, this cannot be assumed for all uses of DwC. Gregor On 4 December 2013 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef(a)bishopmuseum.org> wrote: Hmmm..... This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification class -- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as an occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is Identified. This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really is -- that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a specimen is *designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification instance. Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in an ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus" field in their specimen table (rather than in an Identification table), I can certainly understand the need for this proposed new term. I guess my main concern/question is: how to deal with specimens that represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not necessarily an Edge-case either) Aloha, Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- > bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM > To: TDWG Content Mailing List > Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName > > Dear all, > > This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new term, > typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core issue tracker > at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197. > The justification given for inclusion of the term is: > > "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific name that is > typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how dwc:typeStatus has > been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the need to > express this, but it should better be handled with a term on its own and > leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The term name itself is also > used by ABCD: > http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603." > > The proposal is as follows: > > Definition: > The scientific name that is based on the type specimen. > > Comment: > It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen. > > Refines: > > Has Domain: > > Has Range: > > Replaces: > > ABCD 2.06: > DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation > s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content -- -- --------------------------------- Dr. Gregor Hagedorn Head of Digital World Museum für Naturkunde Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin +49 (0)30 2093 8576 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2930%202093%208576> (work) +49-(0)30-831 5785 <tel:%2B49-%280%2930-831%205785> (private) gregor.hagedorn(a)mfn-berlin.de http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de http://linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn This communication, together with any attachments, is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission may be a violation of copyright or privacy rights.

2 1

Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent
by Éamonn Ó Tuama [GBIF] 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

Following all the excellent contributions on this list relating to expressing abundance data in Darwin Core, I think we may have uncovered a way that does not require any changes to the DwC standard. As has been pointed out, modelling sampling and abundance can be quite complex and challenging and is best done as an ontology (as in the work of the BCO). >From the GBIF perspective, our goal is to make it as simple as possible for data providers to deliver abundance data (in Darwin Core Archive format) that can support the science for processes such as CBD and IPBES. Here, I am using the term abundance (specifically population abundance) in the sense defined by GEO BON: "Quantity of individuals or biomass of a given taxon or functional group at a given location" [1]. The challenge is to come up with a way for Simple Darwin Core to express abundance data. It looks like we can probably work within the restrictions imposed by Simple Darwin Core [2] and use properties from MeasurementOrFact because, for the use case in question here, we only need to share one MeasurementOrFact per record. The model: A sample, associated with a sampling protocol has one or more taxon occurrence records each of which has an abundance measure which is expressed using MeasurementOrFact. At a minimum, we would need the following three MeasurementOrFact properties listed below (with definition and examples): measurementType The nature of the measurement, fact, characteristic, or assertion. Examples: "tail length", "temperature", "trap line length", "survey area", "trap type". For abundances we would use: count, percentage measurementValue The value of the measurement, fact, characteristic, or assertion. Examples: "45", "20", "1", "14.5", "UV-light". For abundances we would use any numeric value. measurementMethod A description of or reference to (publication, URI) the method or protocol used to determine the measurement, fact, characteristic, or assertion. Examples: "minimum convex polygon around burrow entrances" for a home range area, "barometric altimeter" for an elevation. For abundances we would use: Count/sq metre, count/litre, % of biovolume, % of species, ... To enable automated processing, we would need to develop a controlled list for measurementMethod and, ideally, there would also be a URI for the sampling protocol used which would be recorded in the dwc:samplingProtocol field. [1] http://www.earthobservations.org/documents/meetings/201202_geobon_ebv/30_ebv _species_table_v2.pdf [2] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules -----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org Sent: 26 September 2013 17:23 To: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org Subject: tdwg-content Digest, Vol 53, Issue 2 Send tdwg-content mailing list submissions to tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org You can reach the person managing the list at tdwg-content-owner(a)lists.tdwg.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core environmental terms from ENVO (John Wieczorek) 2. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core environmental terms from ENVO (John Wieczorek) 3. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (John Wieczorek) 4. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (Donald Hobern [GBIF]) 5. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (Robert Guralnick) 6. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (Chuck Miller) 7. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (Donald Hobern [GBIF]) 8. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (John Wieczorek) 9. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (John Wieczorek) 10. Re: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent (Robert Guralnick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:44:34 +0200 From: John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core environmental terms from ENVO To: Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CAHwKGGdOf7rMwQ3UCGGw1T53c4J7X=amJ_ibSkSX_WSb5EoqcA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear all, The spirit of the proposal is to satisfy use cases defined in the document "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" found at http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424 by reusing terms from the ENVO ontology. Steve is correct. All of the ENVO terms are classes in keeping with the OBO Foundry way of doing things. As such, they don't work in the intended Darwin Core context as they currently stand, where what we want are properties whose values can come from ENVO as a controlled vocabulary in the way Hilmar described. To satisfy the spirit of the proposal, I suggest that instead of replacing the dwc:habitat property with the envo:habitat class and adding the other three ENVO classes, we modify the existing dwc:habitat property and introduce new properties whose ranges are recommended to be the appropriate ENVO classes, as follows: Retain the property term dwc:habitat, but amend the definition to be: Term Name: habitat Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/habitat Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Habitat Definition: A spatial region having environmental qualities which may sustain an organism or a community of organisms. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the habitat class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Comment: Examples: "freshwater habitat", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002037". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2008-11-19 Date Modified: 2013-09-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: habitat-2013-09-26 Replaces: habitat-2009-04-24 IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) Add the following new property terms for biome, environmental feature, and environmental material: Term Name: biome Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/biome Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Biome Definition: A major class of ecologically similar communities of plants, animals, and other organisms. Biomes are defined based on factors such as plant structures (such as trees, shrubs, and grasses), leaf types (such as broadleaf and needleleaf), plant spacing (forest, woodland, savanna), and other factors like climate. Unlike ecozones, biomes are not defined by genetic, taxonomic, or historical similarities. Biomes are often identified with particular patterns of ecological succession and climax vegetation. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the biome class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Comment: Examples: "flooded grassland biome", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2013-09-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: biome-2013-09-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) Term Name: environmentalFeature Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalFeature Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Environmental Feature Definition: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic of a biome. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the environmental feature class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Comment: Examples: "meadow", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000108". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2013-09-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: environmentalFeature-2013-09-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) Term Name: environmentalMaterial Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalMaterial Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: Environmental Material Definition: Material in or on which organisms may live. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the environmental feature class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). Comment: Examples: "scum", "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00003930". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: proposed Date Issued: 2013-09-26 Date Modified: 2013-09-26 Has Domain: Has Range: Refines: Version: environmentalMaterial-2013-09-26 Replaces: IsReplaceBy: Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) I hope this makes better sense. Cheers, John On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > Well, the proposal says "The Darwin Core term habitat would be redefined..." > . I take that to mean that the term dwc:habitat is being replaced with > envo:00002036 . If that's not what it means, then it would be good to > clarify. If the intention is to provide values for other terms, that should > be stated. > > Steve > > > Hilmar Lapp wrote: > > I was assuming that the proposal was that subclasses of envo:habitat would > take the place of values for the dwc:habitat property. But perhaps I was > naive or misunderstanding? > > -hilmar > > Sent from away > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> > wrote: > > OK, now that I've had a chance to look at the RDF, it is as I suspected. If > I am understanding the proposal correctly, the proposal is to replace the > term <http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/habitat> (i.e. dwc:habitat) with the term > <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036> (which I'll call > envo:00002036 for brevity) However, the definition of dwc:habitat which you > can view at > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/source/browse/trunk/rdf/dwcterms.rdf > says > > dwc:habitat rdf:type rdfs:Property > > whereas the document I received at the end of those four redirects tells me > that > > envo:00002036 rdf:type owl:Class > > Since > > owl:Class rdfs:subclassOf rdfs:Class > > then we are effectively changing the current DwC "habitat" term from a > property into a class similar to dwc:Occurrence, dwc:Identification, > dwc:Taxon, etc. which are all of type rdfs:Class. > > So I'm left wondering what I can do with the new term. With the old term I > could make a statement like > > <http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/50750#eve> dwc:habitat "deciduous > forest" > > or something like that if I take the hint from the DwC class groupings that > dwc:habitat might be a property of dwc:Event instances. But I can't > meaningfully say > > <http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/50750#eve> envo:00002036 > "deciduous forest" > > That doesn't make any sense because the way I understand RDF, predicates > should be properties, not classes. Even if we weren't talking about RDF, > I'd still have the same problem (we are changing a property into a class) - > it's just easier for me to make plain what the issue is by giving RDF > examples. So just exactly what can I "do" with envo:00002036 ????? > > I haven't looked up the RDF for the other proposed terms (too much work with > the four redirects), but I suspect if I did, I'd find that they are also > classes and not properties. This particular issue is a case of a broader > issue that I have about OBO-style ontologies. They are great for defining > how many, many kinds of classes are related to each other. But they provide > very few properties that could be used as predicates to serve as properties > of instance data. > > Steve > > John Wieczorek wrote: > > Dear all, > > GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on > Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at > http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424. Now that this document is > available for public reference, I would like to formally open the > minimum 30-day comment period on the new environmental terms proposed > during the workshop and defined in the referenced document. > > The formal proposal would change the term habitat to align it with the > ENVO habitat term. The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker > is https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=178. The > Darwin Core term habitat would be redefined as follows: > > Term Name: habitat > Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036 > Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ > Label: Habitat > Definition: A spatial region having environmental qualities which may > sustain an organism or a community of organisms. > Comment: Examples: "freshwater habitat", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002037". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2008-11-19 > Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036 > Replaces: habitat-2009-04-24 > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > The formal proposal would add the following new terms for biome, > environmental feature, and environmental material: > > Term Name: biome > Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000428 > Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ > Label: Biome > Definition: A major class of ecologically similar communities of > plants, animals, and other organisms. Biomes are defined based on > factors such as plant structures (such as trees, shrubs, and grasses), > leaf types (such as broadleaf and needleleaf), plant spacing (forest, > woodland, savanna), and other factors like climate. Unlike ecozones, > biomes are not defined by genetic, taxonomic, or historical > similarities. Biomes are often identified with particular patterns of > ecological succession and climax vegetation. > Comment: Examples: "flooded grassland biome", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-25 > Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000428 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > Term Name: environmental feature > Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002297 > Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ > Label: Environmental Feature > Definition: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or > characteristic of a biome. > Comment: Examples: "meadow", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000108". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-25 > Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002297 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > Term Name: environmental material > Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00010483 > Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ > Label: Environmental Material > Definition: Material in or on which organisms may live. > Comment: Examples: "scum", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00003930". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-25 > Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00010483 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are > https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=189 > https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=190 > and > https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=191 > > If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these terms, > or comments about their definitions, please respond to this message. > If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on any > amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive > Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after > the public commentary period. > > Cheers, > > John > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > . > > > > > -- > Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer > Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences > > postal mail address: > PMB 351634 > Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. > > delivery address: > 2125 Stevenson Center > 1161 21st Ave., S. > Nashville, TN 37235 > > office: 2128 Stevenson Center > phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 > If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. > http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > > -- > Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer > Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences > > postal mail address: > PMB 351634 > Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. > > delivery address: > 2125 Stevenson Center > 1161 21st Ave., S. > Nashville, TN 37235 > > office: 2128 Stevenson Center > phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 > If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. > http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:51:13 +0200 From: John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core environmental terms from ENVO To: Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CAHwKGGdARDj32v9EPaofwHrzwonQ3czgwMaiyDmnj3c7L0tMnA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've been in communication with the OBO-ENVO group (obo-envo(a)lists.sourceforge.net) about the proposed re-use of the ENVO terms. The ENVO ontology remains in active development, with a proposed forthcoming guide on how to use ENVO. I have agreed to forward an invitation extended by Pier Buttigieg to the TDWG community to actively contribute. "To be clear, the habitat class itself isn't queued for obsoletion, but its current subclasses are. Once habitat is better-defined, new subclasses will be created. If anyone in TDWG wishes to help shape the definition of this concept or share any observations to promote its usefulness to the biodiversity community we're certainly open to input." On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM, John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > > The spirit of the proposal is to satisfy use cases defined in the > document "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on > Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" found at > http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424 by reusing terms from the ENVO > ontology. Steve is correct. All of the ENVO terms are classes in > keeping with the OBO Foundry way of doing things. As such, they don't > work in the intended Darwin Core context as they currently stand, > where what we want are properties whose values can come from ENVO as a > controlled vocabulary in the way Hilmar described. > > To satisfy the spirit of the proposal, I suggest that instead of > replacing the dwc:habitat property with the envo:habitat class and > adding the other three ENVO classes, we modify the existing > dwc:habitat property and introduce new properties whose ranges are > recommended to be the appropriate ENVO classes, as follows: > > Retain the property term dwc:habitat, but amend the definition to be: > > Term Name: habitat > Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/habitat > Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > Label: Habitat > Definition: A spatial region having environmental qualities which may > sustain an organism or a community of organisms. Recommended best > practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the > habitat class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). > Comment: Examples: "freshwater habitat", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002037". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2008-11-19 > Date Modified: 2013-09-26 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: habitat-2013-09-26 > Replaces: habitat-2009-04-24 > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > Add the following new property terms for biome, > environmental feature, and environmental material: > > Term Name: biome > Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/biome > Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > Label: Biome > Definition: A major class of ecologically similar communities of > plants, animals, and other organisms. Biomes are defined based on > factors such as plant structures (such as trees, shrubs, and grasses), > leaf types (such as broadleaf and needleleaf), plant spacing (forest, > woodland, savanna), and other factors like climate. Unlike ecozones, > biomes are not defined by genetic, taxonomic, or historical > similarities. Biomes are often identified with particular patterns of > ecological succession and climax vegetation. Recommended best practice > is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the biome class > of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). > Comment: Examples: "flooded grassland biome", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-26 > Date Modified: 2013-09-26 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: biome-2013-09-26 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > Term Name: environmentalFeature > Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalFeature > Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > Label: Environmental Feature > Definition: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or > characteristic of a biome. Recommended best practice is to use a > controlled vocabulary such as defined by the environmental feature > class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). > Comment: Examples: "meadow", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000108". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-26 > Date Modified: 2013-09-26 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: environmentalFeature-2013-09-26 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > Term Name: environmentalMaterial > Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/environmentalMaterial > Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > Label: Environmental Material > Definition: Material in or on which organisms may live. Recommended > best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as defined by the > environmental feature class of the Environment Ontology (ENVO). > Comment: Examples: "scum", > "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00003930". For discussion see > http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no > further documentation here until the term is ratified) > Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > Refines: > Status: proposed > Date Issued: 2013-09-26 > Date Modified: 2013-09-26 > Has Domain: > Has Range: > Refines: > Version: environmentalMaterial-2013-09-26 > Replaces: > IsReplaceBy: > Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event > ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > > I hope this makes better sense. > > Cheers, > > John > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Steve Baskauf > <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> wrote: >> Well, the proposal says "The Darwin Core term habitat would be redefined..." >> . I take that to mean that the term dwc:habitat is being replaced with >> envo:00002036 . If that's not what it means, then it would be good to >> clarify. If the intention is to provide values for other terms, that should >> be stated. >> >> Steve >> >> >> Hilmar Lapp wrote: >> >> I was assuming that the proposal was that subclasses of envo:habitat would >> take the place of values for the dwc:habitat property. But perhaps I was >> naive or misunderstanding? >> >> -hilmar >> >> Sent from away >> >> On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf(a)vanderbilt.edu> >> wrote: >> >> OK, now that I've had a chance to look at the RDF, it is as I suspected. If >> I am understanding the proposal correctly, the proposal is to replace the >> term <http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/habitat> (i.e. dwc:habitat) with the term >> <http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036> (which I'll call >> envo:00002036 for brevity) However, the definition of dwc:habitat which you >> can view at >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/source/browse/trunk/rdf/dwcterms.rdf >> says >> >> dwc:habitat rdf:type rdfs:Property >> >> whereas the document I received at the end of those four redirects tells me >> that >> >> envo:00002036 rdf:type owl:Class >> >> Since >> >> owl:Class rdfs:subclassOf rdfs:Class >> >> then we are effectively changing the current DwC "habitat" term from a >> property into a class similar to dwc:Occurrence, dwc:Identification, >> dwc:Taxon, etc. which are all of type rdfs:Class. >> >> So I'm left wondering what I can do with the new term. With the old term I >> could make a statement like >> >> <http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/50750#eve> dwc:habitat "deciduous >> forest" >> >> or something like that if I take the hint from the DwC class groupings that >> dwc:habitat might be a property of dwc:Event instances. But I can't >> meaningfully say >> >> <http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/50750#eve> envo:00002036 >> "deciduous forest" >> >> That doesn't make any sense because the way I understand RDF, predicates >> should be properties, not classes. Even if we weren't talking about RDF, >> I'd still have the same problem (we are changing a property into a class) - >> it's just easier for me to make plain what the issue is by giving RDF >> examples. So just exactly what can I "do" with envo:00002036 ????? >> >> I haven't looked up the RDF for the other proposed terms (too much work with >> the four redirects), but I suspect if I did, I'd find that they are also >> classes and not properties. This particular issue is a case of a broader >> issue that I have about OBO-style ontologies. They are great for defining >> how many, many kinds of classes are related to each other. But they provide >> very few properties that could be used as predicates to serve as properties >> of instance data. >> >> Steve >> >> John Wieczorek wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on >> Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at >> http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424. Now that this document is >> available for public reference, I would like to formally open the >> minimum 30-day comment period on the new environmental terms proposed >> during the workshop and defined in the referenced document. >> >> The formal proposal would change the term habitat to align it with the >> ENVO habitat term. The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker >> is https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=178. The >> Darwin Core term habitat would be redefined as follows: >> >> Term Name: habitat >> Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036 >> Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ >> Label: Habitat >> Definition: A spatial region having environmental qualities which may >> sustain an organism or a community of organisms. >> Comment: Examples: "freshwater habitat", >> "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002037". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) >> Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2008-11-19 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002036 >> Replaces: habitat-2009-04-24 >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> The formal proposal would add the following new terms for biome, >> environmental feature, and environmental material: >> >> Term Name: biome >> Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000428 >> Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ >> Label: Biome >> Definition: A major class of ecologically similar communities of >> plants, animals, and other organisms. Biomes are defined based on >> factors such as plant structures (such as trees, shrubs, and grasses), >> leaf types (such as broadleaf and needleleaf), plant spacing (forest, >> woodland, savanna), and other factors like climate. Unlike ecozones, >> biomes are not defined by genetic, taxonomic, or historical >> similarities. Biomes are often identified with particular patterns of >> ecological succession and climax vegetation. >> Comment: Examples: "flooded grassland biome", >> "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) >> Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2013-09-25 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000428 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> Term Name: environmental feature >> Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002297 >> Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ >> Label: Environmental Feature >> Definition: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or >> characteristic of a biome. >> Comment: Examples: "meadow", >> "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00000108". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) >> Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2013-09-25 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00002297 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> Term Name: environmental material >> Identifier: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00010483 >> Namespace: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ >> Label: Environmental Material >> Definition: Material in or on which organisms may live. >> Comment: Examples: "scum", >> "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00003930". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Event (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) >> Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2013-09-25 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_00010483 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Event >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=189 >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=190 >> and >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=191 >> >> If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these terms, >> or comments about their definitions, please respond to this message. >> If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on any >> amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive >> Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after >> the public commentary period. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer >> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences >> >> postal mail address: >> PMB 351634 >> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. >> >> delivery address: >> 2125 Stevenson Center >> 1161 21st Ave., S. >> Nashville, TN 37235 >> >> office: 2128 Stevenson Center >> phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 >> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. >> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> >> -- >> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer >> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences >> >> postal mail address: >> PMB 351634 >> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. >> >> delivery address: >> 2125 Stevenson Center >> 1161 21st Ave., S. >> Nashville, TN 37235 >> >> office: 2128 Stevenson Center >> phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 >> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. >> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:48:16 +0200 From: John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent To: "Donald Hobern [GBIF]" <dhobern(a)gbif.org> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CAHwKGGdrmyEAwZ-TcTxUqcdGemwc330_H51XUTo9abb0Mez8-g(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Could every concept of abundance be captured in a combination of abundance, abundanceUnit, abundanceMethod? If so, is there justification for creating new terms at all if the concepts can be captured in MeasurentsOrFacts (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#measureindex) which have the following properties? measurementType measurementValue measurementAccuracy measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate measurementDeterminedBy measurementMethod measurementRemarks The only drawback I can see is that with MeasurementOrFacts you could not share the abunance information in Simple Darwin Core. To understand why, see http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <dhobern(a)gbif.org> wrote: > Thanks - I think I too have missed something. If we want to make these > terms usable, there needs to be a simple way to get numbers out of records > that can be compared with one another where sampling methods allow such > comparisons. The suggested plain text examples for Abundance don't make > this possible. Forcing normalisation into percentages seems an unnecessary > hurdle and risks encouraging the impression that number of ducks on a > reservoir is somehow comparable with percentage dry mass, proportional > expression of CO1 for a particular species in an ecogenomics sample, or > whatever. > > I would much rather we ensured we had a standard, preferred field which the > data publisher can populate directly with whatever number is the most > appropriate expression of the relative abundance in the sample. That gives > consumers a clear expectation of how to interpret and handle it. > > Donald > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern(a)gbif.org > Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ > GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark > Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org > [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Aaike De Wever > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44 AM > To: tuco(a)berkeley.edu; TDWG Content Mailing List > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, > abundanceAsPercent > > Dear all, > > As somewhat of an outsider I have another question with regards to the > proposed terms abundance and abundanceAsPercent. > > Is there a specific reason for not adopting: > * the abundance field as a field to store only the value and > * a field abundanceUnit/abundanceType to specify whether the value is in % > of species, % of biovolume, % of biomass, individuals/l, ind./m^2, ind/m^3, > ind./sampling effort,...(instead of having a field specific for %)? > > Maybe this has been discussed during the hackathon and I missed it in the > report? > > Thanks for considering this question. > > With best regards, > Aaike > > John Wieczorek wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on >> Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at >> http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424. Now that this document is >> available for public reference, I would like to formally open the >> minimum 30-day comment period on two related new terms proposed during >> the workshop and defined in the referenced document. >> >> The formal proposal would add the following new terms: >> >> Term Name: abundance >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundance >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ >> Label: Abundance >> Definition: The number of individuals of a taxon found in a sample. >> This is typically expressed as number per unit of area or volume. In >> the case of vegetation and colonial/encrusting species, percent cover >> can be used. >> Comment: Examples: "4 per square meter", "0.32 per cubic meter", >> "24%". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2012-03-01 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: abundance-2013-09-25 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> Term Name: abundanceAsPercent >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundanceAsPercent >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ >> Label: Abundance as Percent >> Definition: 100 times the number of individuals of a taxon found in a >> sample divided by the total number of individuals of all taxa in the >> sample. >> Comment: Examples: "2.4%". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2012-08-01 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: abundanceAsPercent-2013-09-25 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142 >> and >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=187 >> >> If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these new >> terms, or comments about their definitions, please respond to this >> message. If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on >> any amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive >> Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after >> the public commentary period. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > -- > Aaike De Wever > BioFresh Science Officer > Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences > Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium > tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90 > mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93 > email: <aaike.dewever(a)naturalsciences.be> > skype: aaikew > LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever> > BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and > <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> > Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be> > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:01:10 +0200 From: "Donald Hobern [GBIF]" <dhobern(a)gbif.org> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent To: <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> Cc: 'TDWG Content Mailing List' <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <01fd01cebac0$da9a8550$8fcf8ff0$(a)gbif.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks, John. You are correct. I think though that abundance is such a commonly needed property that it would be a mistake not to make it work easily even in Simple Darwin Core. Donald ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern(a)gbif.org Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: gtuco.btuco(a)gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:48 PM To: Donald Hobern [GBIF] Cc: aaike.dewever(a)naturalsciences.be; TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent Could every concept of abundance be captured in a combination of abundance, abundanceUnit, abundanceMethod? If so, is there justification for creating new terms at all if the concepts can be captured in MeasurentsOrFacts (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#measureindex) which have the following properties? measurementType measurementValue measurementAccuracy measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate measurementDeterminedBy measurementMethod measurementRemarks The only drawback I can see is that with MeasurementOrFacts you could not share the abunance information in Simple Darwin Core. To understand why, see http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <dhobern(a)gbif.org> wrote: > Thanks - I think I too have missed something. If we want to make > these terms usable, there needs to be a simple way to get numbers out > of records that can be compared with one another where sampling > methods allow such comparisons. The suggested plain text examples for > Abundance don't make this possible. Forcing normalisation into > percentages seems an unnecessary hurdle and risks encouraging the > impression that number of ducks on a reservoir is somehow comparable > with percentage dry mass, proportional expression of CO1 for a > particular species in an ecogenomics sample, or whatever. > > I would much rather we ensured we had a standard, preferred field > which the data publisher can populate directly with whatever number is > the most appropriate expression of the relative abundance in the > sample. That gives consumers a clear expectation of how to interpret and handle it. > > Donald > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern(a)gbif.org Global Biodiversity > Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ GBIF Secretariat, > Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark > Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org > [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Aaike De > Wever > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44 AM > To: tuco(a)berkeley.edu; TDWG Content Mailing List > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - > abundance, abundanceAsPercent > > Dear all, > > As somewhat of an outsider I have another question with regards to the > proposed terms abundance and abundanceAsPercent. > > Is there a specific reason for not adopting: > * the abundance field as a field to store only the value and > * a field abundanceUnit/abundanceType to specify whether the value is > in % of species, % of biovolume, % of biomass, individuals/l, > ind./m^2, ind/m^3, ind./sampling effort,...(instead of having a field specific for %)? > > Maybe this has been discussed during the hackathon and I missed it in > the report? > > Thanks for considering this question. > > With best regards, > Aaike > > John Wieczorek wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on >> Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at >> http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424. Now that this document is >> available for public reference, I would like to formally open the >> minimum 30-day comment period on two related new terms proposed >> during the workshop and defined in the referenced document. >> >> The formal proposal would add the following new terms: >> >> Term Name: abundance >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundance >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ >> Label: Abundance >> Definition: The number of individuals of a taxon found in a sample. >> This is typically expressed as number per unit of area or volume. In >> the case of vegetation and colonial/encrusting species, percent cover >> can be used. >> Comment: Examples: "4 per square meter", "0.32 per cubic meter", >> "24%". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2012-03-01 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: abundance-2013-09-25 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> Term Name: abundanceAsPercent >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundanceAsPercent >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ >> Label: Abundance as Percent >> Definition: 100 times the number of individuals of a taxon found in a >> sample divided by the total number of individuals of all taxa in the >> sample. >> Comment: Examples: "2.4%". For discussion see >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property >> Refines: >> Status: proposed >> Date Issued: 2012-08-01 >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 >> Has Domain: >> Has Range: >> Refines: >> Version: abundanceAsPercent-2013-09-25 >> Replaces: >> IsReplaceBy: >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) >> >> The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142 >> and >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=187 >> >> If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these new >> terms, or comments about their definitions, please respond to this >> message. If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on >> any amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive >> Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after >> the public commentary period. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > -- > Aaike De Wever > BioFresh Science Officer > Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences > Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium > tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90 > mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93 > email: <aaike.dewever(a)naturalsciences.be> > skype: aaikew > LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever> > BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and > <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> > Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be> > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:15 -0600 From: Robert Guralnick <Robert.Guralnick(a)colorado.edu> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent To: "Donald Hobern [GBIF]" <dhobern(a)gbif.org> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CADAgxGX=ZRknz2T-kd0e9wwwP72pSrtoeRVb175fm1EQQ7iovQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree with Donald here regarding the need for Abundance, but am, to be honest, not quite I understand (or agree) with the logic of the proposal. Abundance is listed as a property of an occurrence, and I wonder if that make sense given the class definition "The category of information pertaining to evidence of an occurrence in nature, in a collection, or in a dataset (specimen, observation, etc.)" Is abundance "evidence of an occurrence in nature". To me, abundance is a property of a survey and its associated methodology and is based on multiple occurrences that come from a sample and a definition of extent. It seems to me to be a bad fit to scrunch abundance into the occurrence class. I recognize that it might not quite fit anywhere in DwC yet. Wouldn't it be better to wait to see if materialSample is ratified as a class within the Darwin Core? Best, Rob On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <dhobern(a)gbif.org>wrote: > Thanks, John. > > You are correct. I think though that abundance is such a commonly needed > property that it would be a mistake not to make it work easily even in > Simple Darwin Core. > > Donald > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern(a)gbif.org > Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ > GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark > Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gtuco.btuco(a)gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > John > Wieczorek > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:48 PM > To: Donald Hobern [GBIF] > Cc: aaike.dewever(a)naturalsciences.be; TDWG Content Mailing List > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, > abundanceAsPercent > > Could every concept of abundance be captured in a combination of abundance, > abundanceUnit, abundanceMethod? > > If so, is there justification for creating new terms at all if the concepts > can be captured in MeasurentsOrFacts > (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#measureindex) which have the > following properties? > > measurementType > measurementValue > measurementAccuracy > measurementUnit > measurementDeterminedDate > measurementDeterminedBy > measurementMethod > measurementRemarks > > The only drawback I can see is that with MeasurementOrFacts you could not > share the abunance information in Simple Darwin Core. To understand why, > see > http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Donald Hobern [GBIF] <dhobern(a)gbif.org> > wrote: > > Thanks - I think I too have missed something. If we want to make > > these terms usable, there needs to be a simple way to get numbers out > > of records that can be compared with one another where sampling > > methods allow such comparisons. The suggested plain text examples for > > Abundance don't make this possible. Forcing normalisation into > > percentages seems an unnecessary hurdle and risks encouraging the > > impression that number of ducks on a reservoir is somehow comparable > > with percentage dry mass, proportional expression of CO1 for a > > particular species in an ecogenomics sample, or whatever. > > > > I would much rather we ensured we had a standard, preferred field > > which the data publisher can populate directly with whatever number is > > the most appropriate expression of the relative abundance in the > > sample. That gives consumers a clear expectation of how to interpret and > handle it. > > > > Donald > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern(a)gbif.org Global Biodiversity > > Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ GBIF Secretariat, > > Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark > > Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org > > [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Aaike De > > Wever > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:44 AM > > To: tuco(a)berkeley.edu; TDWG Content Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed new Darwin Core terms - > > abundance, abundanceAsPercent > > > > Dear all, > > > > As somewhat of an outsider I have another question with regards to the > > proposed terms abundance and abundanceAsPercent. > > > > Is there a specific reason for not adopting: > > * the abundance field as a field to store only the value and > > * a field abundanceUnit/abundanceType to specify whether the value is > > in % of species, % of biovolume, % of biomass, individuals/l, > > ind./m^2, ind/m^3, ind./sampling effort,...(instead of having a field > specific for %)? > > > > Maybe this has been discussed during the hackathon and I missed it in > > the report? > > > > Thanks for considering this question. > > > > With best regards, > > Aaike > > > > John Wieczorek wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> GBIF has just published "Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on > >> Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)" at > >> http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=5424. Now that this document is > >> available for public reference, I would like to formally open the > >> minimum 30-day comment period on two related new terms proposed > >> during the workshop and defined in the referenced document. > >> > >> The formal proposal would add the following new terms: > >> > >> Term Name: abundance > >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundance > >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > >> Label: Abundance > >> Definition: The number of individuals of a taxon found in a sample. > >> This is typically expressed as number per unit of area or volume. In > >> the case of vegetation and colonial/encrusting species, percent cover > >> can be used. > >> Comment: Examples: "4 per square meter", "0.32 per cubic meter", > >> "24%". For discussion see > >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no > >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: > >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > >> Refines: > >> Status: proposed > >> Date Issued: 2012-03-01 > >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > >> Has Domain: > >> Has Range: > >> Refines: > >> Version: abundance-2013-09-25 > >> Replaces: > >> IsReplaceBy: > >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence > >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > >> > >> Term Name: abundanceAsPercent > >> Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/abundanceAsPercent > >> Namespace: http:/rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ > >> Label: Abundance as Percent > >> Definition: 100 times the number of individuals of a taxon found in a > >> sample divided by the total number of individuals of all taxa in the > >> sample. > >> Comment: Examples: "2.4%". For discussion see > >> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence (there will be no > >> further documentation here until the term is ratified) Type of Term: > >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property > >> Refines: > >> Status: proposed > >> Date Issued: 2012-08-01 > >> Date Modified: 2013-09-25 > >> Has Domain: > >> Has Range: > >> Refines: > >> Version: abundanceAsPercent-2013-09-25 > >> Replaces: > >> IsReplaceBy: > >> Class: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Occurrence > >> ABCD 2.0.6: not in ABCD (someone please confirm or deny this) > >> > >> The related issues in the Darwin Core issue tracker are > >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142 > >> and > >> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=187 > >> > >> If there are any objections to the changes proposed for these new > >> terms, or comments about their definitions, please respond to this > >> message. If there are no objections or if consensus can be reached on > >> any amendments put forward, the proposal will go before the Executive > >> Committee for authorization to put these additions into effect after > >> the public commentary period. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> John > >> _______________________________________________ > >> tdwg-content mailing list > >> tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > > > -- > > Aaike De Wever > > BioFresh Science Officer > > Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences > > Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium > > tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90 > > mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93 > > email: <aaike.dewever(a)naturalsciences.be> > > skype: aaikew > > LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever> > > BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and > > <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> > > Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be> > > _______________________________________________ > > tdwg-content mailing list > > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >

2 3