Well, I would respectfully disagree that we are building an ad hoc model here. We are actually at the end of a rather lengthy process of trying to develop a consensus of what exactly an Occurrence is.
Since at least October of 2009, there has been discussion on the tdwg-content list about the meaning of Occurrence. I realize that because of the large number of posts, not everyone had the time to keep up with that conversation and parallel discussions on the topic of Organisms/Individuals, and CollectionObjects/Samples/Tokens. The suggestion was made that someone take the time to summarize these discussions for those who didn't have the time to keep up with them as they were happening. I have expended a rather large amount of time to do exactly that: you can find a somewhat chronological summary at http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/TdwgContentEmailSummary and topical summaries at http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/ClassOccurrence , http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/ClassIndividual which have links to the many of the individual posts that were made on those topics.
What emerged from these discussions was what appeared (to me at least) to be a consensus about what an Occurrence was. I will refer you to the http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/ClassOccurrence page for some of the definitions that were suggested. This consensus made the distinction between the record that an organism was present at a particular time and place, and the evidence (if any) that was used to document the Occurrence. The proposal that John made is a reflection of the apparent consensus that came out of that discussion.
The Darwin Core standard has a process in place for making additions and changes to the terms in its vocabulary. That process involves discussion, consensus-building, and the defining and adoption of new terms (or modification of the definitions of existing terms) when they are needed by a significant portion of the TDWG community. That process has taken place in this instance and I believe that John is right to "call the question" on these new term proposals. TDWG has a reputation as an organization where people talk endlessly and nothing ever really gets accomplished. We have an opportunity here prove that reputation wrong. If we simply start asking the same questions (which have already been discussed ad nauseum) over again without making an actual decision on the proposal, then what we are doing really IS a waste of time. I, for one, have no interest in spending any more time on this issue. So I would recommend that people who want to comment about the proposed definitions of Occurrence, Organism, and CollectionObject review the discussion summaries that I've noted above before restarting conversations that have already pretty much been run into the ground.
I would also respectfully disagree that through these proposals we are building a complex model by adding terms for CollectionObject and Organism. The proposals are ONLY for adding terms. Nothing in those proposals models how the new classes are related to any other existing classes in Darwin Core in a formal way (e.g. through OWL or RDFS). There have been repeated calls for further discussion that would build a consensus about a more complex model, possibly built on top of a foundation based on Darwin Core classes and property terms. As a consequence, we are attempting to charter a group to discuss more complex RDF models that can be used by those who need them (see http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/CharterOfIG). As you suggest, the core members of the proposed group includes representation from the Observations community as well as other constituencies within TDWG. But that discussion is really just starting.
With regards to Markus' concern about whether people will be able to know whether somebody is talking about a "new-style" Occurrence or an "old" Occurrence, I would assert that the "old" Occurrence didn't really have a clear meaning. If you review the summary of the discussion on Occurrence, you can see that it was used to mean at least three different kinds of "things" by different people. What John is actually doing with his proposal is to add clarity about what an Occurrence is where it didn't exist before. I think that is a good thing. If, by the "old" kind of Occurrence people are meaning that Occurrence is a fancier name for PreservedSpecimen (which I believe is how some people in the museum community are thinking of it), then I would say that such a characterization is incorrect (based on the apparent consensus) and that clarifying the incorrectness of that view is a really good thing.
Steve
Éamonn Ó Tuama (GBIF) wrote:
It would be good to hear from someone who is familiar with the work going on in the Observations Task Group and could explain how a generic model for observations/measurements (e.g. OBOE) might help sort out these issues. It seems to me that we are trying to build in an ad-hoc manner an increasingly complex model on top of DwC which is really just a glossary of terms. That does not seem like a good approach - but I'm no modeller :-) _Éamonn
-----Original Message----- From: Dag Endresen (GBIF) [mailto:dendresen@gbif.org] Sent: 13 September 2011 12:18 To: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Éamonn Ó Tuama Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Occurrences, Organisms, and CollectionObjects: a review
Hi Markus,
I believe that the discussion here originates from the view that the "CollectionObject"/"Sample" is a different thing from the "Organism" - and that there can be a relationship between CollectionObjects/Samples and Organisms that could be difficult to describe if these things are identified as the same think (occurrenceID). Do you think that the "Occurrence" would be seen as a thing different from the proposed CollectionObject/Sample and Organism - or as a super-class that would include CollectionObjects/Samples and Organisms? Would the semantics of Occurrence change?
I fully share your view that the Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A) would not be suited to share the full complex relationship between entities - even if persistent identifiers would be used. However if we start to describe and include other things (core types) than only the taxon and occurrences then perhaps the DwC-A could be a useful way to provide a simple list of these entities? This could perhaps provide easier indexing and discovery of these new entities?
Dag
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:03:00 +0200, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
I have to say that the change in semantics to the Occurrence class makes me a bit nervous. Can someone try help fighting my fears?
DarwinCore has no versioning of namespaces, so there is no way for a consumer to detect if its an old style Occurrence or a new one. I am currently parsing various RSS feeds and even though its a mess having to parse 10 different styles I am glad that at least the designers made sure they all have their own namespace! Also removing or renaming terms might cause serious problems. Would discrete versions of dwc with their own namespace hurt?
Another observation relates to dwc archives and its star schema. As an index to data that has been flattened there is no problem with more classes and core row types, but if you want it as a way to transfer complete normalized data it will not work. But that never really was the intention and I simply wanted to stress that fact.
Markus
On Sep 9, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Steve Baskauf wrote:
Richard Pyle wrote:
I'm also wondering if we necessarily need to "break" the traditional view of the "Occurrence" class in order to implement Organism and CollectionObject. As long as we keep in mind that DwC is a vocabulary of terms focused on representing an exchange standard (rather than a full-blown Ontology), perhaps Occurrence records can continue to be represented in the traditional way as "flat" content, but the Organism and CollectionObject classes allow us to present data in a somewhat more "normalized" way in those circumstances that call for it (e.g. tracking individuals or groups over time [Organism], or managing fossil rocks with multiple taxa [CollectionObject] -- to name just two).
I've been thinking about this issue of "backward compatibility" with respect to Occurrences if the CollectionObject/Sample/Token/whatever class is adopted. I really don't think it is going to be as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
It seems to me that the main problems arise in two areas: when one wants to be clear about typing and when one wants to express relationships in a system where it is possible to do through semantics (like RDF). In that kind of circumstance, it's bad (oh yeh, I forgot - the term is "naughty") to say something like resourceA hasOccurrence resourceB when resourceB isn't actually an Occurrence. "Wrong" typing also happens all the time because the classes don't exist (yet) to do the typing correctly. As a case in point, in the Morphbank system, I have multiple images of the same tree. In that system the tree is typed as a "specimen". That is totally wrong because the tree isn't a specimen, but what else is it going to be typed as? There isn't (yet) an appropriate class to put it in.
Although these two problems (wrong typing and using a term with the wrong kind of object which are actually different manifestations of the same class-based problem) are naughty, realistically very few people are actually using a system that is "semantic-aware" (e.g. serving and consuming RDF) so right now making those mistakes doesn't really "break" anything. Most data providers are using traditional databases or even Excel spreadsheets where the DwC terms are just column headings with no real "meaning" other than what the data managers intend for them to mean. So if a manager has a table where each line contains a record for a specimen and has a column heading for a column entitled "dwc:catalogNumber", there isn't really anything other than an idea in the manager's head that the catalogNumber is a property of a specimen or Occurence or CollectionObject. If each line in the database table is "flat" such that one specimen=one CollectionObject=one Occurrence, all that is required to make catalogNumber be a property of a CollectionObject instead of an Occurrence is a different way of thinking in the managers mind because there are really no semantics embedded in the table. We are already doing this kind of mental gymnastics with existing classes like dwc:Identification . If our hypothetical database manager has a column heading that says "dwc:identifiedBy" in the specimen table, that is really a property of dwc:Identification, not dwc:Occurrence but again that is a distinction that is only going to be made in the manager's mind. Making the distinction really only becomes an issue when the database stops being "flat" for a particular relationship, e.g. if the database wants to allow multiple Identifications per specimen record. Then the database structure must be changed accordingly to accommodate that "normalization".
What we have here at the present moment is a situation where data providers don't have any way to have anything but "flat" records where 1 specimen=1 Occurrence=1 Organism. By adding the Organism and CollectionObject classes, we allow people who need or want to have less "flat" (=more "normalized") databases to have something to call the entities that are represented by the new tables they create to handle 1:many relationships instead of 1:1 relationships. Anybody who only cares about 1:1 relationships really doesn't need to worry about the fact that the new class exists, just as people currently don't have to worry about the Identification class if they only allow one Identification per specimen in their database.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a database manager has a table labeled Occurrence, they really don't have to freak out if we now tell them that their table actually should be labeled CollectionObject as long as there is only one CollectionObject per Occurrence. They didn't freak out before when we told them that they should call their table "Occurrence" instead of "Observation" or "Specimen" in 2009, did they?
I think what I'm saying here is what Rich was trying to say in the paragraph I quoted, but I'm not sure.
Steve
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: VU Station B 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) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
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