---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Francisco Pando <pando@gbif.es>
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: BasisOfrecord flavors; which one to choose
To: "John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.edu>
Cc: "dremsen@gbif.org" <dremsen@gbif.org>
Hi John,Thanks a lot, I have a clearer picture now. Please go ahead and post whatever you think could be useful of this on TDWG-Content.
All the best,
Paco
Francisco Pando
Responsable
GBIF.ES, Unidad de Coordinación Tel.+34 91 420 3017 x 274
Real Jardín Botánico - CSIC Fax +34 91 429 2405
Plaza de Murillo, 2 pando@gbif.es
28014 Madrid, Spain www.gbif.es
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK
Sent: martes, 09 de febrero de 2010 17:25
To: Francisco Pando
Cc: dremsen@gbif.org
Subject: Re: BasisOfrecord flavors; which one to choose
Hi Paco,
The only difference between the first list (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/type-vocabulary/index.htm) and the third list (http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/DwCTypeVocabulary) is the Event term. Actually I believe that the Event term shouldn't be on the first list, because it is a Dublin Core term and already a controlled vocabulary term for dcterms:type. I think you should go under that assumption. In any case, I doubt that people will want to share biodiversity records that are Events that are not one of the subtypes of Events on the third list. I updated the Google Code wiki page to be more explicit that the Event and PhysicalObject terms come from Dublin Core.
There has been some discussion on the tdwg-content list about other possible basisOfRecord vocabulary to try to better distinguish digital media. The original argument for this is captured in an Issue on the Darwin Core Google Code site at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=68. This is a good example of how the type vocabulary might be expanded to cover new cases.
I don't know what to tell you about the GBIF vocabulary except that it was devised in April of last year before the type vocabularies for Darwin Core reached their current state of maturity.
As this discussion may be useful to others, I'd like to request that you post it to tdwg-content as well, or give me permission to do so.
Hope that helps,
John
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Francisco Pando <pando@gbif.es> wrote:
Dear David, dear John,
We are in the process of updating some of our software to make it compliant with the approved DwC standard. We decided to start on something we thought it was easy, BasisOfrecord. However we found:
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/type-vocabulary/index.htm
"The Type Vocabulary is a recommended set of values to use for the basisOfRecord term to categorize Darwin Core resources."
Vocabulary for basisOfRecord
Date Modified: 2009-12-07
http://vocabularies.gbif.org/vocabularies/basis_of_record
Concepts in the basisOfRecord vocabulary
Submitted by admin on Tue, 2009-04-21 23:34
http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/DwCTypeVocabulary
The Type Vocabulary used in Darwin Core consists of two parts, vocabulary to describe the record in terms consistent with the Dublin Core Type vocabulary (using the dcterms:type term) and vocabulary to describe the specific biodiversity-related content for a record (using the basisOfRecord term).
The list of valid values for the basisOfRecord include:
Term
Subtype of
Occurrence
Event
PreservedSpecimen
PhysicalObject
FossilSpecimen
PhysicalObject
LivingSpecimen
PhysicalObject
HumanObservation
Event
MachineObservation
Event
Taxon
Location
NomenclaturalChecklist
Updated Jan 17, 2010 by gtuco.btuco
I seems safer to go for the Google Code option, but shouldn’t the three sources be coherent?
Best wishes,
Paco
Francisco Pando
Responsable
GBIF.ES, Unidad de Coordinación Tel.+34 91 420 3017 x 274
Real Jardín Botánico - CSIC Fax +34 91 429 2405
Plaza de Murillo, 2 pando@gbif.es
28014 Madrid, Spain www.gbif.es
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content