I like that idea, John!
On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Dear all,
We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in
human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source.
I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple
real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would
like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for
Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.
Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I
would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of
this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples
would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on
controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as
in the original proposal.
Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on
this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.
Cheers,
John
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008@gmail.com>
wrote:
This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate
annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that
is necessary for DwC at this juncture.
Ramona
------------------------------------------------------
Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.
Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona
Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona
Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org>
wrote:
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100
From: John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu>
Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content
recommendations to comments
To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org>
Message-ID:
<CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear all,
During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin
Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the
definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of
content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin
Core
issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.
The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a
term
are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently
in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for
reference.
This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to
recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We
will
leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless
further discussion arises resulting in amendments.
Cheers,
John
The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we
would
like to move to comments:
datasetID
occurrenceID
sex
lifeStage
reproductiveCondition
behavior
establishmentMeans
occurrenceStatus
organismID
organismScope
materialSampleID
eventID
eventDate
eventTime
locationID
higherGeographyID
continent
waterBody
islandGroup
island
country
countryCode
municipality
locality
minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
locationAccordingTo
decimalLatitude
decimalLongitude
geodeticDatum
coordinateUncertaintyInMeters
pointRadiusSpatialFit
verbatimCoordinates
verbatimLatitude
verbatimLongitude
verbatimCoordinateSystem
verbatimSRS
footprintWKT
footprintSRS
footprintSpatialFit
georeferencedDate
georeferenceVerificationStatus
geologicalContextID
identificationID
dateIdentified
identificationVerificationStatus
taxonID
scientificName
subgenus
taxonRank
nomenclaturalCode
taxonomicStatus
measurementID
measurementType
measurementUnit
measurementDeterminedDate
relationshipOfResource
relationshipEstablishedDate
while the following terms already have the recommendations in the
comments:
institutionID
collectionID
basisOfRecord
dynamicProperties
recordedBy
preparations
disposition
associatedMedia
associatedReferences
associatedSequences
associatedTaxa
otherCatalogNumbers
associatedOccurrences
associatedOrganisms
previousIdentifications
higherGeography
georeferencedBy
georeferenceSources
typeStatus
identifiedBy
identificationReferences
higherClassification
measurementDeterminedBy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150119/38ca5b70/attachment-0001.html
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content