- tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

Re: [tdwg-content] New term needs resolution: yearOfPublication
by Kevin Richards 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

Ha. I had the same problem - first time I have had it - is there something dodgy about goo.gl sort links maybe. I got around it by going to unshorten.com and unshortening it. Kevin ----- Reply message ----- From: "Peter Desmet" <peter.desmet(a)umontreal.ca> Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2011 12:46 pm Subject: [tdwg-content] New term needs resolution: yearOfPublication To: "tuco(a)berkeley.edu" <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> Cc: "TDWG Content Mailing List" <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> The shortlink http://goo.gl/8WkJa has been disabled (at least on my computer), can you include the full URL to the issue? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 05:24, John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu> wrote: > Looks like this one is off to a good start. If there is no dissenting > opinion in the next 30 days, it looks like it'll be included. > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I have something similar that I use for stating the year the species was >> described. >> This is useful for sorting by year etc. So +1 >> Note the datatype rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear" >> >> >> From http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html RDF http://10.10.10.122:3000/ses/v6n7p.rdf >> <txn:yearDescribed >> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">1771</txn:yearDescribed> >> >> Ontology >>  >> <owl:DatatypeProperty >> rdf:about="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#yearDescribed"> >> <rdfs:label >> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYear">yearDes ________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

4 4

New Term needs resolution: DigitalStillImage
by John Wieczorek 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn This term has undergone extensive public commentary since January 2010 when it was first proposed. I will do my best to summarize the thinking on these issues, but please see the full corpus of discussions on tdwg-content to see the full history. It has been suggested that DigitalStillImage is not necessary as a Darwin Core Type vocabulary term (one of the controlled vocabulary terms for basisOfRecord) for at least two reasons: 1) Dublic Core comments on StillImage (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/) as: "Note that Image may include both electronic and physical representations." 2) The basisOfRecord term has no real purpose and without it, there was no need for DigitalStillImage as one of its controlled values. The context for the second statement was the use of Darwin Core in RDF. The basisOfRecord term is essential in data sharing mechanisms such as in Simple Darwin Core text files or Darwin Core Archives where there is no other way to express what is the fundamental concept for a record. The impetus for proposing DigitalStillImage was to allow the basisOfRecord to show that the evidence for an Occurrence was based on a digital image (similar to a PreservedSpecimen being evidence). This purpose still has merit. Discussions on DigitalStillImage touched on many other issues related to ontology and missing or inferred Classes in the Darwin Core. To achieve the original goal behind DigitalStillImage for RDF is more complicated and involves the idea of a Class to represent a concept that could be described as "Evidence". I will create a separate thread for the continuation of that discussion, reserving this thread for the closure of the issue of having no way currently to express that a digital image is the basis for a Darwin Core resource. To achieve the original goal for the case of non-RDF data sharing mechanisms, I propose that StillImage be added to the list of recommendations for the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary, along with MovingImage and Sound. Doing so will create no backward incompatibilities in the Darwin Core.

3 6

Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
by Gregor Hagedorn 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

On 11 July 2011 02:51, Paul Murray <pmurray(a)anbg.gov.au> wrote: > What happened to 'Organism'? Would exclude viruses. -- Gregor

6 6

New terms need resolution: geo:lat and geo:long
by John Wieczorek 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issues 82: http://goo.gl/XhxM This issue arose in discussions on the tdwg-tag list (http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/2010-August/000050.html) to which not everyone here has access. The issue tracker entry (URL above) summarizes the proposed solution to the problem, which is to re-use the W3C standard geographic coordinate terms geo:lat and geo:long from the namespace "http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#. These terms would be added as recommended terms organized within the Location class. They would not replace the existing terms dwc:decimalLatitude and dwc:decimalLongitude, which are not the same except under one special circumstance - that the dwc:geodeticDatum is WGS84 (or equivalent). Since this is not always the case, the existing Darwin Core terms cannot be omitted. Open Issues: Determine if there is any objection to include these two terms as recommended terms to use in the Darwin Core.

2 1

New term resolution: dcterms:source
by John Wieczorek 09 Jul '11

09 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issues 96: http://goo.gl/gOkAs This issue has not been subject to public commentary. The proposal seeks to add the term source from the Dublin Core vocabulary to the recommended record-level terms for the Darwin Core. Open Issues: Determine if there is demand for this term from more than one "independent" party. I consider myself an independent party on behalf of VertNet, for which this term woud be a more general solution than the existing Darwin Core term dwc:occurrenceDetails, as it could apply to records of any Class rather than just for Occurrence. Determine if there is any objection to include this term as recommended for use in the Darwin Core. Determine if there is any objection to deprecating dwc:occurrenceDetails in favor of dcterms:source. Here are the descriptions for the two terms for easy comparison: dwc:occurrenceDetails - definition: "A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence." comment: "Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence" dcterms:source - definition: "A related resource from which the described resource is derived." comment: "The described resource may be derived from the related resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system."

5 14

New term needs resolution: yearOfPublication
by John Wieczorek 06 Jul '11

06 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issue 84: http://goo.gl/8WkJa This issue has not undergone public commentary. Open Issues: Determine if there is a demand for this term. Though the term is well-described in the issue tracker, there is no evidence of a real-world need for it. There has to be a demonstrated need from more than one "independent" source for a term to enter into consideration for addition to the Darwin Core.

5 6

New term resolution: georeferencedDate
by John Wieczorek 04 Jul '11

04 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issues 82: http://goo.gl/XhxM The fact that this term is missing from the Darwin Core is an oversight. The term has been in use in Georeferencing Best Practices since 2001. Open Issues: Determine if there is any objection to adding this term to the Darwin Core.

1 0

New term resolution: alive/dead status
by John Wieczorek 04 Jul '11

04 Jul '11

Darwin Core Issue 91: http://goo.gl/jmk16 This issue has undergone public commentary. Open Issues: Though the term is well-described in the issue tracker and there is evidence of a real-world need for it, public commentary failed to produce a consensus, nor a complete proposal for a new term, nor demand from more than one "independent" source. This issue will be closed.

1 0

DarwinCore breaks my RDF
by Peter DeVries 04 Jul '11

04 Jul '11

Hi, I ran into a problem with the sig.ma service after incorporating some DarwinCore terms. This now prevents my RDF from being analyzed or it seems viewed via Sig.ma What is the cause? If you take this URI http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#acceptedNameUsageID Plug it into the Vapour validator http://validator.linkeddata.org/vapour You get he following error. Vapour was unable to complete the request due to the following exception: ForbiddenAddress: forbidden request from 96.42.27.164 to http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#acceptedNameUsageID (resolves to IP 192.38.28.106), internal IP addresses are forbidden Complete traceback: File "/home/wwwidi/vapour/src/vapour/cup/webclient.py", line 117, in GET recipes.checkRecipes(store, resourcesToCheck, validatorOptions) File "../../vapour/teapot/recipes.py", line 34, in checkRecipes checkWithoutAcceptHeader(graph, resource, validatorOptions) File "../../vapour/teapot/recipes.py", line 49, in checkWithoutAcceptHeader runScenario(graph, resource, scenarioDescription, requestedContentType, validatorOptions, "GET") File "../../vapour/teapot/recipes.py", line 82, in runScenario (rootTestSubject, httpResponse) = followRedirects(graph, "dereferencing " + resource['description'], resource['uri'], requestedContentType, httpMethod, validatorOptions) File "../../vapour/teapot/httpdialog.py", line 22, in followRedirects r = simpleRequest(graph, url, accept, redirectsCount, None, method, options) File "../../vapour/teapot/httpdialog.py", line 62, in simpleRequest raise ForbiddenAddress(str(ip), url, options.client) The particular section and terms seem to be these from http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf  <dwc_terms:acceptedNameUsageID rdf:resource=" http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9 "/> <dwc_terms:acceptedNameUsage>Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771)</dwc_terms:acceptedNameUsage> <dwc_terms:originalNameUsageID rdf:resource=" http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/35da7f30-25ff-5111-ab29-1a4f9988ef51 "/> <dwc_terms:originalNameUsage>Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771</dwc_terms:originalNameUsage> <dwc_terms:vernacularName>Cougar</dwc_terms:vernacularName> Please Fix, otherwise I will need to remove any DarwinCore from my RDF. Thanks, - Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries(a)wisc.edu TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2

Darwin Core pending terms resolution
by John Wieczorek 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

Dear all, I am preparing to resolve outstanding issues with new terms that have been proposed for the Darwin Core following the procedure outlined in the Darwin Core Namespace Policy (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges), section 3.4. The list of terms under consideration include the following, the original proposals for which can be found in the Darwin Core Issue Tracker (http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list): DigitalStillImage (type vocabulary) Individual (class) and individualRemarks dcterms:source alive/dead status yearOfPublication geo:lat and geo:lng georeferencedDate The process for ratification calls for a 30-day public comment period. I will create separate threads explaining the current status for each of the terms or term combinations listed above so that the commentary can be tracked for each. Terms that pass the 30 days with consensus (which will be measured by a lack of dissenting opinion) will be entered into the Darwin Core vocabulary and I will make adjustments to the documentation, schemas, and canonical RDF representation of the standard. Terms that remain controversial will remain in the commentary stage until another semi-annual review can be undertaken. Questions or concerns about this process are welcome. John

2 2