@Gregor - I didn't intend to remove dcterms:source from consideration, I just intended to keep dwc:occurrenceDetails.
It sounds like there is still support for dcterms:source independent of issues surrounding occurrenceDetails.
I like Markus' suggestion to generalize the term we have to something like the following, deprecating occurrenceDetails in favor of:
Term Name: recordUri Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/recordUri Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: recordUri Definition: A reference (publication, URI) to detailed information about the record. Comment: Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms . Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: recommended Date Issued: 2011-07-07 Date Modified: 2011-07-07 Has Domain: Has Range: Version: recordUri-2011-07-07 Replaces: occurrenceDetails-2009-04-24 Is Replaced By: Class: all ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/RecordURI
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference to the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source data." When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains richer data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails - just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to
remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote: I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all
have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is
derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition
or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content