Yes, I see. It was a bit late at night. :-)
Those properties look like a good start. What is the plan with these "extension" properties and the Dariwn Core standard process? Will they be included?
Are they planned to be submitted for the next round/version?
I don’t particular see these as "extensions". More like related terms and properties (probably the same thing really). "Extension" seemed to be more relevant
when we were dealing mainly with XML schemas, where they really needed to be extended. But I think now we have taken a more modeling/ontological approach, we could just add them as additional properties under a different heading. There is no need for an
implementer of DwC2 to use ALL fields, just those that make sense for their specific use case - and I think this is where TDWG could (or will need to) have an influence - ie how a standard is applied to specific use cases.
Another thought - the locality stuff really needs to be thought through a bit more - probably has been by some subgroups in TDWG?? Ie need to tie in with
other Geo standards and ontology efforts in the Geo world. Regions, Spatial coords/params etc… May have already been thought of, I'm not sure.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen@gbif.org]
Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 12:13 a.m.
To: Kevin Richards
Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tuco@berkeley.edu Wieczorek; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Kevin
Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular extension. The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled Distribution. The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is conceptually tied to the
core taxon class via taxonID.
the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and is tied to a vocabulary for this term at
under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
source, locality, and other elements are included. This stuff is in draft for us but it seems fairly congruent.
David
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus,
ie
- taxon concept id
- biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
- biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
- date / temporal
- publication / source
- locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.org]
Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m.
To: Blum, Stan
Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards;
tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further
thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison
against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ??
remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
________________________________________
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM
To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu
Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
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