New Term needs resolution: DigitalStillImage
Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn
This term has undergone extensive public commentary since January 2010 when it was first proposed. I will do my best to summarize the thinking on these issues, but please see the full corpus of discussions on tdwg-content to see the full history.
It has been suggested that DigitalStillImage is not necessary as a Darwin Core Type vocabulary term (one of the controlled vocabulary terms for basisOfRecord) for at least two reasons:
1) Dublic Core comments on StillImage (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/) as: "Note that Image may include both electronic and physical representations."
2) The basisOfRecord term has no real purpose and without it, there was no need for DigitalStillImage as one of its controlled values.
The context for the second statement was the use of Darwin Core in RDF. The basisOfRecord term is essential in data sharing mechanisms such as in Simple Darwin Core text files or Darwin Core Archives where there is no other way to express what is the fundamental concept for a record.
The impetus for proposing DigitalStillImage was to allow the basisOfRecord to show that the evidence for an Occurrence was based on a digital image (similar to a PreservedSpecimen being evidence). This purpose still has merit.
Discussions on DigitalStillImage touched on many other issues related to ontology and missing or inferred Classes in the Darwin Core. To achieve the original goal behind DigitalStillImage for RDF is more complicated and involves the idea of a Class to represent a concept that could be described as "Evidence". I will create a separate thread for the continuation of that discussion, reserving this thread for the closure of the issue of having no way currently to express that a digital image is the basis for a Darwin Core resource.
To achieve the original goal for the case of non-RDF data sharing mechanisms, I propose that StillImage be added to the list of recommendations for the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary, along with MovingImage and Sound. Doing so will create no backward incompatibilities in the Darwin Core.
Given the uses John suggests (non-RDF data sharing, providing a controlled value for basisOfRecord), I think that adding the terms StillImage, Sound, and MovingImage to the Darwin Core type vocabulary is a reasonable course of action. For more complex descriptions (i.e. RDF), additional information can be provided in the metadata to indicate whether the resource is available in digital form.
Although these three terms are in the DCMI type vocabulary, the DCMI type vocabulary does not provide the controlled values for basisOfRecord, so they need to be in the DwC type vocabulary.
While we are on the subject of the DwC type vocabulary, is it also possible to fix the subclass issues (see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/source/browse/trunk/rdf/dwctype.rdf), i.e. saying that an Occurrence is a subclass of an Event, and that a PreservedSpecimen is a subclass of an Occurrence? Simplest solution there is to not make any of the DwC types be subclasses of any other types.
Steve
On 7/4/2011 4:35 PM, John Wieczorek wrote:
Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn
This term has undergone extensive public commentary since January 2010 when it was first proposed. I will do my best to summarize the thinking on these issues, but please see the full corpus of discussions on tdwg-content to see the full history.
It has been suggested that DigitalStillImage is not necessary as a Darwin Core Type vocabulary term (one of the controlled vocabulary terms for basisOfRecord) for at least two reasons:
- Dublic Core comments on StillImage
(http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/) as: "Note that Image may include both electronic and physical representations."
- The basisOfRecord term has no real purpose and without it, there
was no need for DigitalStillImage as one of its controlled values.
The context for the second statement was the use of Darwin Core in RDF. The basisOfRecord term is essential in data sharing mechanisms such as in Simple Darwin Core text files or Darwin Core Archives where there is no other way to express what is the fundamental concept for a record.
The impetus for proposing DigitalStillImage was to allow the basisOfRecord to show that the evidence for an Occurrence was based on a digital image (similar to a PreservedSpecimen being evidence). This purpose still has merit.
Discussions on DigitalStillImage touched on many other issues related to ontology and missing or inferred Classes in the Darwin Core. To achieve the original goal behind DigitalStillImage for RDF is more complicated and involves the idea of a Class to represent a concept that could be described as "Evidence". I will create a separate thread for the continuation of that discussion, reserving this thread for the closure of the issue of having no way currently to express that a digital image is the basis for a Darwin Core resource.
To achieve the original goal for the case of non-RDF data sharing mechanisms, I propose that StillImage be added to the list of recommendations for the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary, along with MovingImage and Sound. Doing so will create no backward incompatibilities in the Darwin Core. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Steven J. Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Given the uses John suggests (non-RDF data sharing, providing a controlled value for basisOfRecord), I think that adding the terms StillImage, Sound, and MovingImage to the Darwin Core type vocabulary is a reasonable course of action. For more complex descriptions (i.e. RDF), additional information can be provided in the metadata to indicate whether the resource is available in digital form.
Although these three terms are in the DCMI type vocabulary, the DCMI type vocabulary does not provide the controlled values for basisOfRecord, so they need to be in the DwC type vocabulary.
I have added three new issues (115-117) in the Darwin Core Issue Tracker ( http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list) to make sure these changes get committed, if there are no objections by the end of the comment period (3 August 2011).
While we are on the subject of the DwC type vocabulary, is it also possible to fix the subclass issues (see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/source/browse/trunk/rdf/dwctype.rdf), i.e. saying that an Occurrence is a subclass of an Event, and that a PreservedSpecimen is a subclass of an Occurrence? Simplest solution there is to not make any of the DwC types be subclasses of any other types.
Yes, the subtyping can be removed. That will be more flexible going forward than committing to an implied ontology that hasn't been fully developed.
For those new to this topic and interested in its history, discussions began in late October 2010 on tdwg-content with the post archived at http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2010-October/001778.html.
I have entered 6 issues (109-114) in the Darwin Core Issue tracker ( http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list) to make sure these changes get committed, unless any objections are expressed by the end of the comment period (3 August 2011).
Steve
On 7/4/2011 4:35 PM, John Wieczorek wrote:
Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn
This term has undergone extensive public commentary since January 2010 when it was first proposed. I will do my best to summarize the thinking on these issues, but please see the full corpus of discussions on tdwg-content to see the full history.
It has been suggested that DigitalStillImage is not necessary as a Darwin Core Type vocabulary term (one of the controlled vocabulary terms for basisOfRecord) for at least two reasons:
- Dublic Core comments on StillImage
(http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/) as: "Note that Image may include both electronic and physical representations."
- The basisOfRecord term has no real purpose and without it, there
was no need for DigitalStillImage as one of its controlled values.
The context for the second statement was the use of Darwin Core in RDF. The basisOfRecord term is essential in data sharing mechanisms such as in Simple Darwin Core text files or Darwin Core Archives where there is no other way to express what is the fundamental concept for a record.
The impetus for proposing DigitalStillImage was to allow the basisOfRecord to show that the evidence for an Occurrence was based on a digital image (similar to a PreservedSpecimen being evidence). This purpose still has merit.
Discussions on DigitalStillImage touched on many other issues related to ontology and missing or inferred Classes in the Darwin Core. To achieve the original goal behind DigitalStillImage for RDF is more complicated and involves the idea of a Class to represent a concept that could be described as "Evidence". I will create a separate thread for the continuation of that discussion, reserving this thread for the closure of the issue of having no way currently to express that a digital image is the basis for a Darwin Core resource.
To achieve the original goal for the case of non-RDF data sharing mechanisms, I propose that StillImage be added to the list of recommendations for the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary, along with MovingImage and Sound. Doing so will create no backward incompatibilities in the Darwin Core. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list 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: 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
Although these three terms are in the DCMI type vocabulary, the DCMI type vocabulary does not provide the controlled values for basisOfRecord, so they need to be in the DwC type vocabulary.
Question to an RDF-expert: Is this a technical limitation? I don't fully grasp why here a vocabulary needs to duplicated (the entire dcmi-type vocabulary is a potential vocabulary for basis of record, not just three items).
Gregor
It isn't duplicated - it's just suggested for re-use.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
Although these three terms are in the DCMI type vocabulary, the DCMI type vocabulary does not provide the controlled values for basisOfRecord, so they need to be in the DwC type vocabulary.
Question to an RDF-expert: Is this a technical limitation? I don't fully grasp why here a vocabulary needs to duplicated (the entire dcmi-type vocabulary is a potential vocabulary for basis of record, not just three items).
Gregor
On 15 July 2011 00:50, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
It isn't duplicated - it's just suggested for re-use.
With reference to Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn I thought that a new dwc:DigitalStillImage is proposed? -- Gregor
That's been taken off of the table in favor of the current solution - proposed in the original message in this thread ( http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-July/002573.html).
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
On 15 July 2011 00:50, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
It isn't duplicated - it's just suggested for re-use.
With reference to Darwin Core Issue 68: http://goo.gl/Q7TRn I thought that a new dwc:DigitalStillImage is proposed? -- Gregor
participants (3)
-
Gregor Hagedorn -
John Wieczorek -
Steven J. Baskauf