Re: [Tdwg-lit] Level 1 - Intent of standard
I would like to hear from those who suggested this standard was needed, as to the intent of this level of standard (I'm not sure I recall who that was anymore) and from there we should make decisions about how complete they need to be. I was, naively, thinking that direct string comparisons would be possible, if the standard were clear (at least to the point that one might be part of another or they might overlap, or occur 'next to' each other etc.).
Cheers, Anna
"Donald Hobern" dhobern@gbif.org 10-Feb-2006 3:51:31 AM >>>
Anna,Thanks for this. The main question I think needs to be clarified is how much flexibility a data provider is to be allowed in completing the human-readable string. Clearly we do not expect to be able to perform direct string comparisons between two provider's citations, so are these just recommendations of components that should be included, or is the intention to mandate a particular sequence of elements? Which ones are considered (at least more or less) mandatory, and which are optional? I guess we should provide some actual examples of "complete" and "partial" citations and state whether they are regarded as sufficient.Donald
--------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------
From: TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Anna Weitzman Sent: 09 February 2006 16:11 To: TDWG-Lit@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [Tdwg-lit] Level 1 starting point
Dear All,
This is the first of several strings that we are sending to the list for consideration and discussion.
++++
Proposed Level 1 Standard
Attached is the basic content we discussed at the TDWG meetings, and which we now need to consider. Could you please consider the contents as set out?
Are there elements anything missing?
Does it meet the need that you envision for this standard?
Do any of you who attended the recent TDWG GUID meeting have anything to bring up related to the LSID/GUID portion?
Thanks, Anna & Chris
I would like to hear from those who suggested this standard was needed, as to the intent of this level of standard (I'm not sure I recall who that was anymore) and from there we should make decisions about how complete they need to be. I was, naively, thinking that direct string comparisons would be possible, if the standard were clear (at least to the point that one might be part of another or they might overlap, or occur 'next to' each other etc.).
Anna
I see multiple reasons:
a) Data exist. If we look at existing databases in many cases literature reference are simply entered as free-form text. This is also the case in the TDWG ABCD standard, where any occurrence of publication/reference occurs through unstructured string.
Making a-posteriori requirements how exactly this string looks effectively prevents data exchange.
b) you build new knowledge in an area, where references are secondary. And you have limited money, time, etc. You may whish to purposely decide that the situation created so often in a) is still good enough for you. It is a trade- off.
c) In many cases when an object (in this example a reference) is presented for human consumption, a single-string representation is desirable.
Now, here it would be truly useful to have rules how to create this string in any case where more detailed / atomized data are available.
d) Perhaps confusing, please ignore if so: Seen from the other side, when we are in a specimen and want to say the specimen has been published somewhere, technically it would be sufficient to simple store a uri. However, considering we want to express scientific data, I believe it would be wise to store a uri plus a single string representation. If the uri breaks (say in 50 years), we still have the scientific data.
These are the reasons why in UBIF we believe we need for every object a level 1 representation.
Gregor---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
participants (2)
-
Anna Weitzman -
Gregor Hagedorn