Renato et al.,
Just a quick point about the status of and revising NCD. I think it is ratified, but revising it does not mean that it has to go through the whole process. Our process leaves open the possibility that changes can be made to improve a standard or correct errors without going through the entire review process, IF the changes are deemed to be conceptually minor and/or broadly supported. The executive committee, in consultation with the TAG, has the authority to approve a new version. It must be a new version, however (at least under the previous concept of the process).
-Stan
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:51 AM To: renato@cria.org.br Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [Fwd: Re: NCD and DwC]
I'm moving this conversation into tdwg-content to weave together the conversation for all.
Sorry about the confusion. The conversation has progressed in this side thread beyond my proposal in the tdwg-content list.
I'm not sure what you mean by shield, but yes, the idea is to make sure they are minimally affected by whatever may happen to NCD. To me that means using a refinement, technically.
Yes, at least from the process perspective there is still an opportunity to rework NCD, as it hasn't fully progressed through the standards process. It is now at essentially the same stage as Darwin Core, though I expect Darwin Core to be ready for Executive Review this week, while NCD may take longer.
I agree that consistent conventions would be nice across standards. Ultimately it will help all of our stakeholders. But DwC is the first to follow the vocabulary-first paradigm in the footsteps of Dublin Core. I can imagine inertia or resistance for other standards in the TDWG family.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM, renato@cria.org.br wrote:
Hi John,
Initially I had the impression that you repeated the same proposal
that
you sent to the mailing list, but now I see what you mean. Sorry.
So the idea is to actually shield DwC terms, not exactly refine the
NCD
ones. I would prefer to see NCD terms being directly used, but I understand your position. Although we have the chance to change NCD,
I
would feel better knowing Roger's opinion about this. It's a strange situation because in theory we shouldn't be changing NCD. It is
already
fully ratified (or am I wrong, Wouter?). So we shouldn't expect
changes,
unless NCD decides to release a new version and go through the TDWG process all over again.
I definitely agree that we should try to define and use the same
namespace
and naming conventions across our standards.
Renato
I think my solution is already congruent with what you are saying, Renato. My proposed solution is to declare these DwC terms as formal refinements of the NCD terms. If the NCD terms change between now
and
when that standard gets ratified, all DwC will have to do is change the refines attributes - no one in implementation will be affected. That aside, I think it would be best if NCD followed the established DC pattern of term identification, not just for consistency, but
also
for usability. I can definitely foresee people wanting to use the fielded text solution for sharing NCD records, and the way the terms are identified now that will be a mess.
Here are the terms I have proposed and their formal refinements.
dwc:institutionCode refines
http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Code
dwc:institutionID refines
http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Id
dwc:collectionCode refines
http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Collection#Code
dwc:collectionID refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Collection#Id dwc:ownerInstitutionCode refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Code
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content