Send tdwg-content mailing list submissions to
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tdwg-content-owner@lists.tdwg.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new Darwin
Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent) (Steve Baskauf)
2. Re: A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new Darwin
Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent) (Steve Baskauf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:13:58 -0500
From: Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed
new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)
To: Robert Guralnick <Robert.Guralnick@colorado.edu>
Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org>
Message-ID: <525B1B26.1010806@vanderbilt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Sorry, I don't agree at all.
The core Darwin-SW classes include only Darwin Core classes and the two
proposed DwC classes (Organism and CollectionObject a.k.a.
dsw:IndividualOrganism and dsw:Evidence) which underwent 30 day public
comment period [1] and were submitted to the Executive which recommended
further consideration by the RDF Task Group and the community at large.
The Documenting Darwin Core sessions at the TDWG meeting will pick up
these and other open issues for further discussion and hopefully move
them towards closure one way or the other. If the two proposed classes
are at some point accepted for inclusion in DwC, Darwin-SW will use the
new classes and deprecate dsw:IndividualOrganism and dsw:Evidence,
leaving only Darwin Core classes as the core classes in Darwin-SW.
It is NOT my view that Darwin-SW is unable to handle current needs for
linking resources effectively. If anyone wants to know why I say that,
come to our talk in the Friday 9AM session on Ontologies and Formal
Models at the meeting. We will show how real SPARQL queries on
Darwin-SW-based data can address important competency questions
involving diverse linked resources. Or see me any time during the
meeting earlier in the week and I'll be happy to give you a personal
demonstration not limited to 9 minutes.
Steve
[1]
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-September/002727.html
see also open issue https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69
Robert Guralnick wrote:
>
> Rod --- There are a couple different conceptions of
> interrelationships between Darwin Core "classes", including the Darwin
> Core Semantic Web effort led by Steve Baskauf and Cam Web, and the
> BiSciCol project. Darwin Core SW is
> here: https://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/ and the BiSciCol "take" is
> here: http://biscicol.blogspot.com/2013_03_01_archive.html. The
> Darwin Core SW version includes new classes not in Darwin Core, while
> BiSciCol uses only existing class terms and a very simple set of
> predicates.
>
> I think in many people's view, including those of the authors of the
> above (although I hate speaking for them), neither DW-SW or
> DW-BiSciCol may be really able to handle the current needs for linking
> resources together effectively. There has been a major effort to
> refocus away from jury-rigging Darwin Core to try to serve in a more
> semantic framework and pushing towards other solutions that align
> biodiversity standards more with the OBO Foundry
> (http://www.obofoundry.org/). The Biocollections Ontology
> (BCO; https://code.google.com/p/bco/) represents (what I hope) is a
> clear rethinking of the challenge that does connect back to the Darwin
> Core.
>
> Best, Rob
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Roderic Page <r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk
> <mailto:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> I've always been somewhat puzzled by the disconnect between the
> TDWG LSID ontology
> (e.g., http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept ) which has a
> rich set of classes and links between those classes, and Darwin
> Core
> (e.g., http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/type-vocabulary/index.htm )
> which overlaps with this vocabulary and, in my opinion, does a
> worse job in some areas, notably taxon names and concepts. Maybe
> the LSID vocabulary suffered from the limited uptake of LSIDs
> (apart from the nomenclators and Catalogue of Life) or from the
> complexity of dealing with RDF, but it seems that much of the
> essential work was done when Roger Hyam created that ontology.
>
> What might help is a way to visualise the TDWG LSID ontology in
> terms of the interconnections between the different classes. I'm
> not aware of such a visualisation (nor of an equivalent one for
> the Darwin Core classes).
>
> In any event, it seems odd to have two distinct ontologies that
> are both in use, and which overlap so significantly.
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 16:12, Donald Hobern [GBIF] wrote:
>
>> It?s been a couple of weeks but I said I?d try to write something
>> about a more general concern I have around the way we use
>> basisOfRecord and dcterms:type to hold values like occurrence,
>> event and materialSample. This is something that has concerned
>> me for years and that, I worry, is making everything we all do
>> much messier than it need be.
>>
>> I believe that the way we have come to use Darwin Core
>> basisOfRecord is confused and unhelpful. I really wish we used
>> Darwin Core like this:
>>
>> 1. basisOfRecord should be used ONLY to indicate the type
>> of evidence that lies behind a record ? a key aspect of whether
>> the record is likely to be useful for different purposes
>> 2. basisOfRecord values should be taken from a hierarchical
>> vocabulary with three main branches:
>> a. ?specimens? (i.e. biological material that can be
>> reviewed), with a hierarchy of subordinate values such as
>> ?pinnedSpecimen?, ?herbariumSheet?, etc.
>> b. derived, non-biological evidence (not sure what name),
>> with a hierarchy of subordinate values such as ?dnaSequence?,
>> ?soundRecording?, ?stillImage?, etc.
>> c. asserted observations with no revisitable evidence other
>> than the authority of the observer
>> 3. TDWG should deliver a basic ontology in the form of a
>> graph of key relationships between the most significant
>> conceptual entities in our world (TaxonName, TaxonConcept,
>> Identification, Collection, Specimen, Locality, Agent, ?)
>> 4. This ontology should not attempt to map all the
>> complexity of biodiversity-related data ? just provide the
>> high-level map and key relationships (TaxonConcept hasName
>> TaxonName, Specimen heldIn Collection, etc.) ? it should leave
>> definition of other properties as a separate, open-ended activity
>> for the community
>> 5. This ontology should be reviewed at regular intervals
>> and versioned as necessary to address critical gaps ? provided
>> that backwards compatibility is maintained (splitting a class
>> into multiple consitituent classes probably won?t break anything,
>> so start simple)
>> 6. The Darwin Core vocabulary should be published as a
>> flat, open-ended list of terms with clear definitions that can be
>> freely combined as columns in denormalised records
>> 7. Every Darwin Core term should be documented to be
>> tightly associated with a single, fixed class in the ontology
>> (e.g. scientificName and specificEpithet are ALWAYS considered to
>> be properties of a TaxonName whether or not that TaxonName object
>> is clearly referenced or separated out)
>> 8. Every data publisher should be encouraged to share all
>> relevant data elements in their source data in the most
>> convenient normalised or denormalised form, provided they use the
>> recognised Darwin Core properties for elements that match the
>> definition for those terms, and provided they give some metadata
>> for other elements. Possible forms include:
>> a. A completely hierarchical, ABCD-like, XML representation
>> b. A completely flat denormalised, simple-DwC-like, CVS
>> representation, if the data includes no elements with higher
>> cardinality
>> c. A set of flat, relational, CVS representations, as with
>> Darwin Core Archive star schemas, but with freedom to have more
>> complex graphed relationships as needed
>> 9. Each table of CVS data in 8b and 8c is a view that
>> corresponds to a linear subgraph of the TDWG ontology, identified
>> by the classes of the DwC properties used ? this allows us to
>> infer the ?shape? of the data in terms of the ontology
>> 10. If we do this, we do not need to worry about whether a
>> record is a checklist record, an event, an occurrence, a material
>> sample or whatever else, although we could use the dcterms: type
>> property, or some new property, to hold this detail as a further
>> clue to intent and possible use for the record
>>
>> Here is an example. In today?s terms, what sort of DwC record is
>> this? Do I really have to replace ?recordId? with ?eventId?,
>> ?occurrenceId? or similar? And which should I choose?
>>
>> *recordId, decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude,
>> coordinatePrecision, eventDate, scientificName, individualCount*
>>
>> I think it is clear that this record tells us that there was a
>> recording event at a particular time and place where someone or
>> some process recorded a given number of individual organisms
>> which were identified as representatives of a taxon concept with
>> a name corresponding to the supplied scientific name. In other
>> words this gives us some properties from a subgraph that might
>> include, say, instances of TDWG Event, Locality, Date,
>> Occurrence, Identification, TaxonConcept and TaxonName classes.
>> None of these is specifically referenced but we can unambiguously
>> fold the flat record onto the ontology. We can moreover then use
>> the combination of supplied elements to decide whether this
>> record would be of interest to GBIF, a national information
>> facility, a tool cataloguing uses of scientific names, etc. The
>> same will also apply if multiple CVS tables are provided as in 8c.
>>
>> I have thought about this for a long time and cannot yet think of
>> an area in which this would not work efficiently ? and
>> unambiguously ? for all concerned. There are some cases where
>> multiple instances of the same ontology class would be referenced
>> within a single record, which may mean more care is needed by the
>> publisher (e.g. if an insect specimen record includes a reference
>> to a host plant). There may be cases where automated review of
>> the data indicates that there are impossible combinations or
>> ambiguities that the publisher must resolve. However I believe
>> we could use this approach to generalise all mobilisation and
>> consumption of biodiversity data (including all the things we
>> have addressed under ABCD, SDD, TCS, Plinian Core, etc.) and to
>> make it genuinely possible for any data holder to share all the
>> data they have in a form that makes sense to them, while allowing
>> others to consume these data intelligently.
>>
>> Right now, I think our confused use of basisOfRecord is almost
>> the only thing that stops us from exploring this. We have
>> blurred the question of the evidence for a record, with the
>> question of the ?shape? of the record as a subgraph. These are
>> different things. Separating them will allow us to get away from
>> some of our unresolvable debates and open up the doors to much
>> simpler data sharing and reuse.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Donald
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern@gbif.org
>> <mailto:dhobern@gbif.org>
>> Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/
>> GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?,
>> Denmark
>> Tel: +45 3532 1471 <tel:%2B45%203532%201471> Mob: +45 2875 1471
>> <tel:%2B45%202875%201471> Fax: +45 2875 1480
>> <tel:%2B45%202875%201480>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org>
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk <mailto:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk>
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778 <tel:%2B44%20141%20330%204778>
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792 <tel:%2B44%20141%20330%202792>
> Skype: rdmpage
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page
> Citations:
> http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> <http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ>
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org>
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20131013/1c736d97/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:44:38 -0500
From: Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed
new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)
To: "Donald Hobern [GBIF]" <dhobern@gbif.org>
Cc: 'TDWG Content Mailing List' <tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org>, 'Chuck
Miller' <Chuck.Miller@mobot.org>
Message-ID: <525B2256.8060706@vanderbilt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Donald,
With regards to the uncertainty about the meaning of dwc:basisOfRecord,
the proposed Darwin Core RDF Guide attempts to inject clarity into the
situation. It does so in two ways:
1. It allows dwc:basisOfRecord to be used with literal (text) values to
allow existing implementations to expose whatever values they currently
have for that term. However, it specifies that rdf:type should be used
exclusively as the property for specifying URI-reference values intended
to indicate the type of the subject resource. [1] There is some
ambiguity about what the subject is of a dwc:basisOrRecord property (the
resource, or the record about the resource?). However, there is no
similar ambiguity about rdf:type which always serves to indicate the
class of which the subject resource is an instance.
2. It specifies that classes in the Darwin Core Type vocabulary
namespace (dwctype: = http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwctype/ ) should be used
for typing resources in the biodiversity domain rather than any
corresponding classes in the main Darwin Core namespace (dwc: =
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ ). [2] In other words, if given the
choice between dwc:Occurrence and dwctype:Occurrence, use
dwctype:Occurrence. The guide proposes to add to the type vocabulary
any classes which exist in the dwc: namespace and not in the dwctype:
namespace (e.g. dwc:Identification). The intention is that the DwC type
vocabulary would be what it's name suggests: the vocabulary for
describing types. There are some issues involving the current
definitions in the type vocabulary, which I won't go into in this
email. As Rich said earlier, this is a topic for one of the Documenting
Darwin Core sessions at the meeting.
Although these guidelines would hold force specifically for RDF
implementations, this is a convention that could be followed in other
implementations.
Steve
[1]
http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.4_Other_predicates_used_to_indicate_type
[2]
http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_to_be_used_for_type_declarations_of_resources_de
Donald Hobern [GBIF] wrote:
>
> Thanks, Rich.
>
>
>
> Very pleased to see this. With this encouragement, I'll say just a
> little bit more about why I think this is a critical need.
>
>
>
> I see the model I describe as the perfect real-world realisation of
> most of the key components in the GBIO Framework
> (http://www.biodiversityinformatics.org/), as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. Everyone zips up whatever data they have from each resource
> (databases, field instruments, sequencers, data extracted from
> literature, checklists, whatever) into a DwC Archive using whatever
> DwC elements they can for data elements and describing other elements
> not currently recognised in DwC (the GBIO DATA layer)
>
> 2. These archives should be placed in repositories that offer
> basic services (DOIs, annotation services, etc.) (the GBIO CULTURE layer)
>
> 3. Harvesters assess the contents of each archive and determine
> what views can be supported from the supplied elements (occurrence
> records for GBIF, name usage records, species interactions, etc.) and
> catalogue these views in relevant discovery indexes (GBIF, Catalogue
> of Life, TraitBank, etc.) (the GBIO EVIDENCE layer)
>
> 4. Users can at any time annotate elements in the archives to
> provide mappings for (potentially more recently defined) DwC or other
> properties, opening up new options for reuse
>
>
>
> Donald
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern@gbif.org
>
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/
>
> GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen ?, Denmark
>
> Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:49 PM
> To: 'Donald Hobern [GBIF]'; 'TDWG Content Mailing List'
> Cc: 'Chuck Miller'
> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed
> new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)
>
>
>
> Hi Donald,
>
>
>
> MANY thanks for this! And you are certainly not alone in your
> concerns about these issues. In fact, we have planned a Symposium for
> "Documenting DarwinCore"
>
> (https://mbgserv18.mobot.org/ocs/index.php/tdwg/2013/schedConf/trackPolicies
>
> #track11), and one of the four sessions (Session 3, to be precise) of
> the symposium focuses exactly on this issue of
> basisOfRecord/dcterms:type/etc.
>
>
>
> Another session (Session 2) will focus on proposed and
> perhaps-to-be-proposed new classes (Individual, MaterialSample,
> Evidence), and will start out with a series graphs illustrating the
> existing high-level ontology and possible alternative high-level
> ontologies, as you indicate in your items 3 & 4.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20131013/786e836c/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
End of tdwg-content Digest, Vol 54, Issue 11
********************************************