Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
1) Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
2) NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
3) Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
----- from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni ------- from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim ------- from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
------ from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
John, I second those ideas. And if Neil and other agree on this too, I am happy to do those changes on the schemas and rdf files.
Markus
On Aug 15, 2009, at 14:14, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
- Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename
them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
- Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it
to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
- Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
John et al.:
I am responding regarding the definitions outlined in your note below pertaining to
institutionCode: collectionCode: collectionID: datasetID: catalogNumber:
The definitions that you provided work from the standpoint of the originating institution, but may not work well from the standpoint of a repository when the originating institution remains involved in the management of the specimens and records while the specimens may be on loan to the repository. I can best describe the problem by giving a typical example from the National Park Service.
Example: NPS permits the collection of specimens in a park. The specimens remain federal property and are cataloged in the NPS system. The specimens go on loan to the State University Museum, which has agreed to serve as the repository. The State University Museum (SUM) creates a new catalog record for the specimen using its catalog system, while cross-referencing the NPS catalog number. The State University Museum periodically reports to NPS on research use of the specimen, third party loans (which NPS authorizes the State University Museum to make), annotations, condition, etc. NPS updates its catalog record (the original record) with this information. As a condition of the permit, the permitted researcher submits copies of his/her field notes, maps, photos (a.k.a. associated resource management records) to NPS and conveys the copyright. NPS catalogs the resource management records in its archival system. NPS provides copies of the field notes to the State University Museum for use in managing the specimens and to provide researcher access to the notes.
If this example follows the definitions outlined below, the NPS, as the institution administering the original record (and specimens), would be identified in the InstitutionCode, CollectionCode, and CollectionID, while the repository institution could show its information in AssociatedOccurrence (for example, "same as SUM:Mammal:1234") and OtherCatalogNumber fields. Is the repository going to be satisfied? Afterall, the repository is where researchers go to see the specimens. Is the repository getting adequate recognition for its role?
An alternative, as previously proposed, could provide for parallel data sets for the owning institution and institution of custody. See Issues 35 and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thanks to all for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl, Sent by: Neil Thomson n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, tdwg-content-boun TDWG Content Mailing List ces@lists.tdwg.or tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org g cc Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, 08/15/2009 08:14 "donald.hobern" AM donald.hobern@csiro.au Subject [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC Please respond to tuco@berkeley.edu
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
1) Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
2) NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
3) Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
----- from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni ------- from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim ------- from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
------ from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi Ann,
Thanks for the clear example and explanation. I agree with you that my attempt to solve the problem of propagating data sets (each adding record identifiers) by referring to the "original" record has problems when it comes to this "custody case". I think the best identifiers to use in the institutionCode, collectionID, collectionCode, and catalogNumber would be those for the repository institution, the one in which the specimens are actually curated, the one which you describe as having custody. If I take the references to "original" out of the definitions then the choice of what information to put there will be at the discretion of the data publisher. That's probably fine.
Specifically, I propose the following new definitions:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
There exist many relationships that institutions can have with a specimen (or data set), and I don't think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to support all of these possibilities (including ownership, which can be very controversial) in the primary data served via Simple Darwin Core. The mechanism exists to relate records between data sets explicitly using the ResourceRelationship class as well as through the otherCatalogNumbers and associatedOccurrences terms. I posit that these are sufficient to cover the cases presented thus far.
John
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John et al.:
I am responding regarding the definitions outlined in your note below pertaining to
institutionCode: collectionCode: collectionID: datasetID: catalogNumber:
The definitions that you provided work from the standpoint of the originating institution, but may not work well from the standpoint of a repository when the originating institution remains involved in the management of the specimens and records while the specimens may be on loan to the repository. I can best describe the problem by giving a typical example from the National Park Service.
Example: NPS permits the collection of specimens in a park. The specimens remain federal property and are cataloged in the NPS system. The specimens go on loan to the State University Museum, which has agreed to serve as the repository. The State University Museum (SUM) creates a new catalog record for the specimen using its catalog system, while cross-referencing the NPS catalog number. The State University Museum periodically reports to NPS on research use of the specimen, third party loans (which NPS authorizes the State University Museum to make), annotations, condition, etc. NPS updates its catalog record (the original record) with this information. As a condition of the permit, the permitted researcher submits copies of his/her field notes, maps, photos (a.k.a. associated resource management records) to NPS and conveys the copyright. NPS catalogs the resource management records in its archival system. NPS provides copies of the field notes to the State University Museum for use in managing the specimens and to provide researcher access to the notes.
If this example follows the definitions outlined below, the NPS, as the institution administering the original record (and specimens), would be identified in the InstitutionCode, CollectionCode, and CollectionID, while the repository institution could show its information in AssociatedOccurrence (for example, "same as SUM:Mammal:1234") and OtherCatalogNumber fields. Is the repository going to be satisfied? Afterall, the repository is where researchers go to see the specimens. Is the repository getting adequate recognition for its role?
An alternative, as previously proposed, could provide for parallel data sets for the owning institution and institution of custody. See Issues 35 and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thanks to all for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl, Sent by: Neil Thomson n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, tdwg-content-boun TDWG Content Mailing List ces@lists.tdwg.or tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org g cc Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, 08/15/2009 08:14 "donald.hobern" AM donald.hobern@csiro.au Subject [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC Please respond to tuco@berkeley.edu
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
- Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them
to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
- Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to
"Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
- Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
John
The set of definitions that you propose below works for the institution with custody, except for CollectionID, which still refers to the "original collection." These definitions are clearer than those that used the term "administering."
I agree that all relationships to specimens and data cannot be described, for example custody for temporary purposes, such as identification, research, or preservation treatment, cannot be recorded here. However, ownership and (long-term) custody are fundamental and each implies certain rights and responsibilities. The suggestion that "owning institution" should not be considered because it "can be very controversial" is spurious. On that basis, the schema would need to drop "TaxonID" and any number of other data fields that "can be very controversial!"
Although the specimen or record owner is generally the ultimate rights holder, the physical property owner may not always be the intellectual property owner. Therefore, using the rights holder field is not a substitute for identifying the physical property owner. Loan agreements generally require that the owner of the collection be credited in exhibits, publications, and other uses and that the owner's catalog number be cited. How do you propose that the custody institution, when sharing data about the collection, will credit the owner? Listing the owner's catalog number under other catalog numbers is helpful but does not indicate whether this is a previously used number or a current catalog number or a collector number, or an owner number, etc.. The structure assumes that the prime catalog number is that of the custody institution, which is sharing the data, but the owning institution catalog number is ultimately the prime or ranking number, if a choice is forced. The reason that the owning institution number must be considered prime, is that the custody institution is a Borrower (albeit a long-term Borrower). Absence of an Owner Institution Code means the Custody Institution cannot fulfill its legal responsibility to credit the owner and cite the owner's catalog number and, in sharing the data without this information, the Custody Institution will preclude all other subsequent users from meeting this legal obligation to identify the owner of the specimen or record.
You, of course, have an in depth understanding of how this will all work. I, however, still maintain that the solution proposed for parallel data sets for the owning institution and the institution of custody is the clearest and most informative to the individual seeking information about the specimens or data and facilitates meeting the obligation to credit the owner and cite the owner's catalog number. See Issues 35 and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov Sent by: cc gtuco.btuco@gmail "donald.hobern" .com donald.hobern@csiro.au, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Neil Thomson 08/18/2009 02:41 n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, TDWG Content PM Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org, tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org Please respond to , Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl tuco@berkeley.edu Subject Re: [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC
Hi Ann,
Thanks for the clear example and explanation. I agree with you that my attempt to solve the problem of propagating data sets (each adding record identifiers) by referring to the "original" record has problems when it comes to this "custody case". I think the best identifiers to use in the institutionCode, collectionID, collectionCode, and catalogNumber would be those for the repository institution, the one in which the specimens are actually curated, the one which you describe as having custody. If I take the references to "original" out of the definitions then the choice of what information to put there will be at the discretion of the data publisher. That's probably fine.
Specifically, I propose the following new definitions:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
There exist many relationships that institutions can have with a specimen (or data set), and I don't think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to support all of these possibilities (including ownership, which can be very controversial) in the primary data served via Simple Darwin Core. The mechanism exists to relate records between data sets explicitly using the ResourceRelationship class as well as through the otherCatalogNumbers and associatedOccurrences terms. I posit that these are sufficient to cover the cases presented thus far.
John
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John et al.:
I am responding regarding the definitions outlined in your note below pertaining to
institutionCode: collectionCode: collectionID: datasetID: catalogNumber:
The definitions that you provided work from the standpoint of the originating institution, but may not work well from the standpoint of a repository when the originating institution remains involved in the management of the specimens and records while the specimens may be on
loan
to the repository. I can best describe the problem by giving a typical example from the National Park Service.
Example: NPS permits the collection of specimens in a park. The
specimens
remain federal property and are cataloged in the NPS system. The
specimens
go on loan to the State University Museum, which has agreed to serve as
the
repository. The State University Museum (SUM) creates a new catalog
record
for the specimen using its catalog system, while cross-referencing the
NPS
catalog number. The State University Museum periodically reports to NPS
on
research use of the specimen, third party loans (which NPS authorizes the State University Museum to make), annotations, condition, etc. NPS
updates
its catalog record (the original record) with this information. As a condition of the permit, the permitted researcher submits copies of
his/her
field notes, maps, photos (a.k.a. associated resource management records) to NPS and conveys the copyright. NPS catalogs the resource management records in its archival system. NPS provides copies of the field notes
to
the State University Museum for use in managing the specimens and to provide researcher access to the notes.
If this example follows the definitions outlined below, the NPS, as the institution administering the original record (and specimens), would be identified in the InstitutionCode, CollectionCode, and CollectionID,
while
the repository institution could show its information in AssociatedOccurrence (for example, "same as SUM:Mammal:1234") and OtherCatalogNumber fields. Is the repository going to be satisfied? Afterall, the repository is where researchers go to see the
specimens. Is
the repository getting adequate recognition for its role?
An alternative, as previously proposed, could provide for parallel data sets for the owning institution and institution of custody. See Issues
35
and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thanks to all for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl, Sent by: Neil Thomson n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, tdwg-content-boun TDWG Content Mailing List ces@lists.tdwg.or tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org g cc Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, 08/15/2009 08:14 "donald.hobern" AM donald.hobern@csiro.au Subject [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC Please respond to tuco@berkeley.edu
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It
would
be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
- Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them
to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
- Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to
"Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
- Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership
vs.
custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Comments inline.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John
The set of definitions that you propose below works for the institution with custody, except for CollectionID, which still refers to the "original collection." These definitions are clearer than those that used the term "administering."
My oversight. The intention was to remove "original" but I missed it in that definition. Instead it should have been: collectionID: "A unique identifier for the collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)."
I agree that all relationships to specimens and data cannot be described, for example custody for temporary purposes, such as identification, research, or preservation treatment, cannot be recorded here.
All relationships can be described (using the ResourceRelationship class), just not in a flat schema.
However, ownership and (long-term) custody are fundamental and each implies certain rights and responsibilities. The suggestion that "owning institution" should not be considered because it "can be very controversial" is spurious. On that basis, the schema would need to drop "TaxonID" and any number of other data fields that "can be very controversial!"
Point taken.
Although the specimen or record owner is generally the ultimate rights holder, the physical property owner may not always be the intellectual property owner. Therefore, using the rights holder field is not a substitute for identifying the physical property owner. Loan agreements generally require that the owner of the collection be credited in exhibits, publications, and other uses and that the owner's catalog number be cited. How do you propose that the custody institution, when sharing data about the collection, will credit the owner? Listing the owner's catalog number under other catalog numbers is helpful but does not indicate whether this is a previously used number or a current catalog number or a collector number, or an owner number, etc..
The structure assumes that the prime catalog number is that of the custody institution, which is sharing the data, but the owning institution catalog number is ultimately the prime or ranking number, if a choice is forced. The reason that the owning institution number must be considered prime, is that the custody institution is a Borrower (albeit a long-term Borrower). Absence of an Owner Institution Code means the Custody Institution cannot fulfill its legal responsibility to credit the owner and cite the owner's catalog number and, in sharing the data without this information, the Custody Institution will preclude all other subsequent users from meeting this legal obligation to identify the owner of the specimen or record.
OK, let's keep institutionCode with the definition "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." and add ownerInstitutionCode with the definition "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having ownership of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." If we include the ownerInstitutionCode
You, of course, have an in depth understanding of how this will all work. I, however, still maintain that the solution proposed for parallel data sets for the owning institution and the institution of custody is the clearest and most informative to the individual seeking information about the specimens or data and facilitates meeting the obligation to credit the owner and cite the owner's catalog number. See Issues 35 and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
The issues on the code site don't recommend a collection code or a catalog number for the owner, though that seems to be suggested here. I really don't want to add two more terms to be able to capture this information for a special case, especially since the same can be done with the otherCatalogNumbers term aided by the new ownerInstitutionCode. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise?
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Thanks for pushing the case toward a better understanding.
John
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov Sent by: cc gtuco.btuco@gmail "donald.hobern" .com donald.hobern@csiro.au, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Neil Thomson 08/18/2009 02:41 n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, TDWG Content PM Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org, tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org Please respond to , Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl tuco@berkeley.edu Subject Re: [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC
Hi Ann,
Thanks for the clear example and explanation. I agree with you that my attempt to solve the problem of propagating data sets (each adding record identifiers) by referring to the "original" record has problems when it comes to this "custody case". I think the best identifiers to use in the institutionCode, collectionID, collectionCode, and catalogNumber would be those for the repository institution, the one in which the specimens are actually curated, the one which you describe as having custody. If I take the references to "original" out of the definitions then the choice of what information to put there will be at the discretion of the data publisher. That's probably fine.
Specifically, I propose the following new definitions:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
There exist many relationships that institutions can have with a specimen (or data set), and I don't think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to support all of these possibilities (including ownership, which can be very controversial) in the primary data served via Simple Darwin Core. The mechanism exists to relate records between data sets explicitly using the ResourceRelationship class as well as through the otherCatalogNumbers and associatedOccurrences terms. I posit that these are sufficient to cover the cases presented thus far.
John
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John et al.:
I am responding regarding the definitions outlined in your note below pertaining to
institutionCode: collectionCode: collectionID: datasetID: catalogNumber:
The definitions that you provided work from the standpoint of the originating institution, but may not work well from the standpoint of a repository when the originating institution remains involved in the management of the specimens and records while the specimens may be on
loan
to the repository. I can best describe the problem by giving a typical example from the National Park Service.
Example: NPS permits the collection of specimens in a park. The
specimens
remain federal property and are cataloged in the NPS system. The
specimens
go on loan to the State University Museum, which has agreed to serve as
the
repository. The State University Museum (SUM) creates a new catalog
record
for the specimen using its catalog system, while cross-referencing the
NPS
catalog number. The State University Museum periodically reports to NPS
on
research use of the specimen, third party loans (which NPS authorizes the State University Museum to make), annotations, condition, etc. NPS
updates
its catalog record (the original record) with this information. As a condition of the permit, the permitted researcher submits copies of
his/her
field notes, maps, photos (a.k.a. associated resource management records) to NPS and conveys the copyright. NPS catalogs the resource management records in its archival system. NPS provides copies of the field notes
to
the State University Museum for use in managing the specimens and to provide researcher access to the notes.
If this example follows the definitions outlined below, the NPS, as the institution administering the original record (and specimens), would be identified in the InstitutionCode, CollectionCode, and CollectionID,
while
the repository institution could show its information in AssociatedOccurrence (for example, "same as SUM:Mammal:1234") and OtherCatalogNumber fields. Is the repository going to be satisfied? Afterall, the repository is where researchers go to see the
specimens. Is
the repository getting adequate recognition for its role?
An alternative, as previously proposed, could provide for parallel data sets for the owning institution and institution of custody. See Issues
35
and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thanks to all for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl, Sent by: Neil Thomson n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, tdwg-content-boun TDWG Content Mailing List ces@lists.tdwg.or tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org g cc Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, 08/15/2009 08:14 "donald.hobern" AM donald.hobern@csiro.au Subject [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC Please respond to tuco@berkeley.edu
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It
would
be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
- Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them
to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
- Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to
"Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
- Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership
vs.
custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
John
Thank you very much!
I believe the "ownerInstitutionCode" when used with "otherCatalogNumbers" and, as needed, with "dcterms:access;Rights", "dcterms:bibliographic Citation", "dcterms:rights", "determs:rights:Holder", and "occurrenceRemarks", will adequately address the property interests of the owning institution. These changes will help to resolve issues that the National Park Service and other land-managing entities (including countries) face as they work with repositories that have custody of these collections to make the collections available on the web, for example in virtual herbaria.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov Sent by: cc tdwg-content-boun Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, TDWG ces@lists.tdwg.or Content Mailing List g tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org, "donald.hobern" donald.hobern@csiro.au, Neil 08/26/2009 12:12 Thomson n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, AM tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org , Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl Please respond to Subject tuco@berkeley.edu Re: [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC
Comments inline.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John
The set of definitions that you propose below works for the institution with custody, except for CollectionID, which still refers to the
"original
collection." These definitions are clearer than those that used the term "administering."
My oversight. The intention was to remove "original" but I missed it in that definition. Instead it should have been: collectionID: "A unique identifier for the collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)."
I agree that all relationships to specimens and data cannot be described, for example custody for temporary purposes, such as identification, research, or preservation treatment, cannot be recorded here.
All relationships can be described (using the ResourceRelationship class), just not in a flat schema.
However, ownership and (long-term) custody are fundamental and each implies
certain
rights and responsibilities. The suggestion that "owning institution" should not be considered because it "can be very controversial" is spurious. On that basis, the schema would need to drop "TaxonID" and any number of other data fields that "can be very controversial!"
Point taken.
Although the specimen or record owner is generally the ultimate rights holder, the physical property owner may not always be the intellectual property owner. Therefore, using the rights holder field is not a substitute for identifying the physical property owner. Loan agreements generally require that the owner of the collection be credited in
exhibits,
publications, and other uses and that the owner's catalog number be
cited.
How do you propose that the custody institution, when sharing data about the collection, will credit the owner? Listing the owner's catalog
number
under other catalog numbers is helpful but does not indicate whether this is a previously used number or a current catalog number or a collector number, or an owner number, etc..
The structure assumes that the prime catalog number is that of the custody institution, which is sharing the data, but the owning institution catalog number is ultimately the prime
or
ranking number, if a choice is forced. The reason that the owning institution number must be considered prime, is that the custody institution is a Borrower (albeit a long-term Borrower). Absence of an Owner Institution Code means the Custody Institution cannot fulfill its legal responsibility to credit the owner and cite the owner's catalog number and, in sharing the data without this information, the Custody Institution will preclude all other subsequent users from meeting this legal obligation to identify the owner of the specimen or record.
OK, let's keep institutionCode with the definition "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." and add ownerInstitutionCode with the definition "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having ownership of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." If we include the ownerInstitutionCode
You, of course, have an in depth understanding of how this will all work. I, however, still maintain that the solution proposed for parallel data sets for the owning institution and the institution of custody is the clearest and most informative to the individual seeking information about the specimens or data and facilitates meeting the obligation to credit
the
owner and cite the owner's catalog number. See Issues 35 and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
The issues on the code site don't recommend a collection code or a catalog number for the owner, though that seems to be suggested here. I really don't want to add two more terms to be able to capture this information for a special case, especially since the same can be done with the otherCatalogNumbers term aided by the new ownerInstitutionCode. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise?
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Thanks for pushing the case toward a better understanding.
John
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK" <tuco@berkeley.ed To u> Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov Sent by: cc gtuco.btuco@gmail "donald.hobern" .com donald.hobern@csiro.au, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Neil Thomson 08/18/2009 02:41 n.thomson@nhm.ac.uk, TDWG Content PM Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org, tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org Please respond to , Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl tuco@berkeley.edu Subject Re: [tdwg-content] NCD and DwC
Hi Ann,
Thanks for the clear example and explanation. I agree with you that my attempt to solve the problem of propagating data sets (each adding record identifiers) by referring to the "original" record has problems when it comes to this "custody case". I think the best identifiers to use in the institutionCode, collectionID, collectionCode, and catalogNumber would be those for the repository institution, the one in which the specimens are actually curated, the one which you describe as having custody. If I take the references to "original" out of the definitions then the choice of what information to put there will be at the discretion of the data publisher. That's probably fine.
Specifically, I propose the following new definitions:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
There exist many relationships that institutions can have with a specimen (or data set), and I don't think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to support all of these possibilities (including ownership, which can be very controversial) in the primary data served via Simple Darwin Core. The mechanism exists to relate records between data sets explicitly using the ResourceRelationship class as well as through the otherCatalogNumbers and associatedOccurrences terms. I posit that these are sufficient to cover the cases presented thus far.
John
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Ann_Hitchcock@nps.gov wrote:
John et al.:
I am responding regarding the definitions outlined in your note below pertaining to
institutionCode: collectionCode: collectionID: datasetID: catalogNumber:
The definitions that you provided work from the standpoint of the originating institution, but may not work well from the standpoint of a repository when the originating institution remains involved in the management of the specimens and records while the specimens may be on
loan
to the repository. I can best describe the problem by giving a typical example from the National Park Service.
Example: NPS permits the collection of specimens in a park. The
specimens
remain federal property and are cataloged in the NPS system. The
specimens
go on loan to the State University Museum, which has agreed to serve as
the
repository. The State University Museum (SUM) creates a new catalog
record
for the specimen using its catalog system, while cross-referencing the
NPS
catalog number. The State University Museum periodically reports to NPS
on
research use of the specimen, third party loans (which NPS authorizes
the
State University Museum to make), annotations, condition, etc. NPS
updates
its catalog record (the original record) with this information. As a condition of the permit, the permitted researcher submits copies of
his/her
field notes, maps, photos (a.k.a. associated resource management
records)
to NPS and conveys the copyright. NPS catalogs the resource management records in its archival system. NPS provides copies of the field notes
to
the State University Museum for use in managing the specimens and to provide researcher access to the notes.
If this example follows the definitions outlined below, the NPS, as the institution administering the original record (and specimens), would be identified in the InstitutionCode, CollectionCode, and CollectionID,
while
the repository institution could show its information in AssociatedOccurrence (for example, "same as SUM:Mammal:1234") and OtherCatalogNumber fields. Is the repository going to be satisfied? Afterall, the repository is where researchers go to see the
specimens. Is
the repository getting adequate recognition for its role?
An alternative, as previously proposed, could provide for parallel data sets for the owning institution and institution of custody. See Issues
35
and 36 at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list.
Thanks to all for your consideration of this issue.
Ann
Ann Hitchcock National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (2301) Washington, DC 20240-0001 202-354-2271 Fax: 202-371-2422
"John R. WIECZOREK"
<tuco@berkeley.ed To
u> Wouter Addink wouter@eti.uva.nl, Sent by: Neil Thomson
tdwg-content-boun TDWG Content Mailing List ces@lists.tdwg.or tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
g cc
Lee Belbin lee@tdwg.org, Gail Kampmeier gkamp@uiuc.edu, 08/15/2009 08:14 "donald.hobern" AM donald.hobern@csiro.au
Subject
[tdwg-content] NCD and DwC Please respond to tuco@berkeley.edu
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It
would
be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related
terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
- Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them
to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
- Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to
"Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
- Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership
vs.
custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection. _______________________________________________ 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
I also agree with these ideas. Actually I also wouldn't mind if both standards use the TDWG Ontology namespace. I just think it's strange to see the standards following different approaches with some degree of overlap.
Best Wishes, -- Renato
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
- Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
- NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
- Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Hi John and all,
Sorry for the late response, but I was on an extended holiday.
I retired from the Natural History Museum last December and I am no longer taking any active part in the NCD development. I had discussions with Wouter before retiring and (I believe) he has agreed to carry on stewardship of the standard during the final stages of approval.
I would like to thank all those colleagues that helped to get NCD into its current state and hope that it will fulfil a useful function in future.
All best wishes, Neil
________________________________
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com on behalf of John R. WIECZOREK Sent: Sat 15/08/2009 13:14 To: Wouter Addink; Neil Thomson; TDWG Content Mailing List Cc: Lee Belbin; Gail Kampmeier; donald.hobern Subject: NCD and DwC
Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or, better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick solutions, I'll summarize.
1) Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
2) NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain. Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
3) Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for object collections.
With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as collectionID.
Following are relevant message excerpts from previous tdwg-content postings:
----- from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM subject Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni ------- from Tim Robertson trobertson@gbif.org to tuco@berkeley.edu cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:12 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim ------- from renato@cria.org.br to TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM subject Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards,
Renato
------ from John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu reply-to tuco@berkeley.edu to Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org cc TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org date Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM subject Re: [tdwg-content] InstitutionCode Issue - ownership vs. custodianship
The codes are now meant for any data set (a collection of data), not just collections of objects. They were actually always meant to be that way, but the descriptions had their origins in the specimen collections realm. Specifically, the following terms can all be used to identify where data are coming from originally:
institutionCode collectionCode collectionID datasetID
while the Dublin Core terms dc:rights, and dc:rightsHolder can be used to describe the original or other vested interests.
To be more clear about what I meant about collection-related terms, I would propose changing the descriptions as follow:
institutionCode: "The name (or acronym) in use by the institution administering the original record." collectionCode: "The name (or acronym) identifying the original collection or data set from which the record was derived." collectionID: "A unique identifier for the original collection or dataset from which the record was derived. Recommended best practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as the Biodiversity Collections Index (http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/)." datasetID: "An identifier for the data set. May be a global unique identifier or an identifier specific to a collection or institution." (unchanged) catalogNumber: An identifier (preferably unique) for the record within the data set or collection.
participants (5)
-
Ann_Hitchcock＠nps.gov -
John R. WIECZOREK -
Markus Döring -
Neil Thomson -
renato＠cria.org.br