Is dwcattributes normative and its properties covered by the RDF guide?
We already have various properties defined in that namespace to document dwc terms, all of which take literal values: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/attributes/dwcattributes.rdf
I’m not entirey convinced it buys us a lot if we mix terms from all sorts of sources (and thereby their different conventions) rather than having them all defined explicitly in this one namespace.
Markus
On 05 Feb 2015, at 17:31, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Using a property from a well-known vocabulary like SKOS would be good. But there is the problem that Bob mentioned. Also, I'm not clear about the entailments that would result from skos:note and skos:example being declared as annotation properties. [1]
I think that the intention of the RDF guide was that as new properties were added to DwC, they would be birthed simultaneously in both the IRI-object and literal-object versions without necessitating a change to the guide itself. Whether that is allowed technically, I don't know. When we add terms to the normative DwC document, they show up in the non-normative documents of the standard (e.g. the quick reference guide) without additional action. If that's not a problem, then adding them to the list in the RDF guide also should be able to happen routinely.
This is a good topic for the vocabulary maintenance task group (currently in the process of formation).
Steve
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.rdf
Bob Morris wrote:
I like the idea in principle. Would it be subject to the conventions of the RDF Guide? That is, would it be explicitly declared as taking a literal object and be accompanied by an IRI version dwcattributes:exampleIRI? Would this require adding to the scope of the Guide? (Is the scope of the Guide sufficient for the current enterprise in general?)
The proposals to use skos:example are appealing on several grounds. But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.
Bob
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notes
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
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