In Audubon Core [1], there are sometimes other terms that are associated with a string term whose purpose is to indicate the controlled vocabulary being used in the other term (e.g. Iptc4xmpExt:CVterm for a controlled value term and ac:subjectCategoryVocabulary to indicate the vocabulary from which the controlled value term comes). I reviewed the DwC terms and I guess there is no precedent for that kind of thing in DwC. I suppose if people want to be unambiguous, they should just use URIs. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of URIs for the terms from various systems of describing biomes. I suppose someone could mint terms if they cared about this. Or use ENVO uris.
Steve
[1] http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List_%281.0_normative%29
John Wieczorek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
The other thing I'm wondering about the values of dwc:biome would be how a user would indicate the controlled vocabulary one is using. The ENVO ontology is mentioned. Under the scenario of the draft RDF guide, the term dwcuri:biome would have a URI value of http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195. That would be unambiguous. However, if dwc:biome is reserved for literal values (as the RDF guide suggests it should be) then how does a machine know that "flooded grassland biome" is a label from ENVO and not a literal description of a biome from the Whittaker, Walter, Bailey, etc. systems which are probably currently in much wider use than ENVO and therefore likely controlled vocabularies of choice for many users?
A machine will have no way to know from which vocabulary a value for a property comes unless the value says so. That is common to all terms that recommend a controlled vocabulary, but do not enforce it. It would be no different for dwc:biome. The only way to be unambiguous is to provide an unambiguous value, which, as you noted, http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ENVO_01000195 is.
.