Wrapping up public comment on 204 - 226
Hi Everyone,
The following is a summary of the comments received since announcing the proposals encapsulated in Issues 204 - 226 [1]. Comment came in two forms - posts to tdwg-content, and comments in the Darwin Core Issue Tracker [2]. Only one issue attracted comment on tdwg-content, and five issues attracted (mostly clarifying) comments in the Tracker. (This is encouraging, since the proposals were the result of a years-long consensus building process.)
The issue that was the subject of discussion on this list was Issue 205, the proposal to add a dwc:Organism class. The first comment came from Rob Guralnick, who did not see the need for this new class [3]. In reply, Steve Baskauf pointed out that we already have an Organism class, implied by the existing term dwc:individualID, and that the proposal simply describes what kinds of things could reasonably have their identifier be the value of dwc:individualID. There was concurrence with Steve from Rich Pyle and Bob Morris, with no further comment.
The other comments on this issue were related to my suggestion [4] that the proposal be amended to i) remove the reference to OBI in our definition, and ii) to give the new class an opaque identifier. In regards (i), Rich, Bob, and Steve were in favour, and Hilmar opposed. In regards (ii), Bob was in favour, while Rich and Hilmar were initially opposed. After some conversation, however, it seemed acceptable to them that the term be given an opaque identifier, with organism as the label. Eamonn also seemed on board with an opaque identifier.
Meanwhile, the Issue Tracker saw the following:
Issue 204, the umbrella Issue for all the changes Bob wondered how we might notify those whose DwC Archives would be affected by the proposed changes. Steve and Markus argued that existing DwCAs would not be affected, for reasons they explain in their comments
Issue 211, dwc:NomenclaturalChecklist JohnW pointed out that dwctype:NomenclaturalChecklist was to be replaced by dwctype:Nomen, which suggests that the correct label for the new term is dwc:Nomen.
Issue 212, dwc:Occurrence I suggested expanding the definition of occurrence to include non-organismal things like genes, rocks, and metagenomic samples. For reasons I explain in my comment, I dont think we need to do this now.
Issue 214, dwc:Event Some clarifying remarks from Bob and Steve.
Issue 222, organismID Clarification from Steve (and an indication of support from Bob).
Issue 226, AssociatedOrganisms Some questions from Bob, answered by Steve. ---
If I have mischaracterized anything above, please let me know.
Thanks! Joel.
A quick response to your comment about expanding the scope of occurrence to include things other than "organisms". Rich Pyle and I have talked about this and both agree that such an expansion would be useful, but probably as a superproperty to dwc:occurrence as you suggested. Rich was wanting to have occurrences of things like boats. So maybe something to look at as a follow-up, as you suggested. Steve
joel sachs wrote:
Hi Everyone,
The following is a summary of the comments received since announcing the proposals encapsulated in Issues 204 - 226 [1]. Comment came in two forms
- posts to tdwg-content, and comments in the Darwin Core Issue Tracker
[2]. Only one issue attracted comment on tdwg-content, and five issues attracted (mostly clarifying) comments in the Tracker. (This is encouraging, since the proposals were the result of a years-long consensus building process.)
The issue that was the subject of discussion on this list was Issue 205, the proposal to add a dwc:Organism class. The first comment came from Rob Guralnick, who did not see the need for this new class [3]. In reply, Steve Baskauf pointed out that we already have an Organism class, implied by the existing term dwc:individualID, and that the proposal simply describes what kinds of things could reasonably have their identifier be the value of dwc:individualID. There was concurrence with Steve from Rich Pyle and Bob Morris, with no further comment.
The other comments on this issue were related to my suggestion [4] that the proposal be amended to i) remove the reference to OBI in our definition, and ii) to give the new class an opaque identifier. In regards (i), Rich, Bob, and Steve were in favour, and Hilmar opposed. In regards (ii), Bob was in favour, while Rich and Hilmar were initially opposed. After some conversation, however, it seemed acceptable to them that the term be given an opaque identifier, with organism as the label. Eamonn also seemed on board with an opaque identifier.
Meanwhile, the Issue Tracker saw the following:
Issue 204, the umbrella Issue for all the changes Bob wondered how we might notify those whose DwC Archives would be affected by the proposed changes. Steve and Markus argued that existing DwCAs would not be affected, for reasons they explain in their comments
Issue 211, dwc:NomenclaturalChecklist JohnW pointed out that dwctype:NomenclaturalChecklist was to be replaced by dwctype:Nomen, which suggests that the correct label for the new term is dwc:Nomen.
Issue 212, dwc:Occurrence I suggested expanding the definition of occurrence to include non-organismal things like genes, rocks, and metagenomic samples. For reasons I explain in my comment, I dont think we need to do this now.
Issue 214, dwc:Event Some clarifying remarks from Bob and Steve.
Issue 222, organismID Clarification from Steve (and an indication of support from Bob).
Issue 226, AssociatedOrganisms Some questions from Bob, answered by Steve.
If I have mischaracterized anything above, please let me know.
Thanks! Joel.
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content .
participants (2)
-
joel sachs -
Steve Baskauf