Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence.
The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them.
Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue.
There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.
Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes.
Joel.
1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order]
Hi Joel,
Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues? To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence.
The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them.
Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue.
There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.
Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes.
Joel.
- https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down"
to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu
wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hello all I agree with Rob. I've actually been doing a lot of thinking about this sort of thing (2nd point). I am definitely "in" for any attempt to organize meetings and funding. anne
On 7/23/2014 8:51 AM, Robert Guralnick wrote:
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel. To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job. I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago. The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well. The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore. Steve [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG joel sachs wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote: > >> Hi Joel, >> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues? > > Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process > for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue > Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by > the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. > So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to > ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see > our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and > so thought it made sense to inform the list. > >> To elicit further >> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action? >> >> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is >> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion. > > I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to > lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the > proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to > deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The > category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc > classes. > > Cheers, > Joel. > > > >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu <mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>> >> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 - 226 in >> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe >> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered >> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core >> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the >> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was >> reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence. >> >> The background for this is that, for some time, a number of >> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to >> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In >> the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics >> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be >> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be >> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a >> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core >> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding >> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the >> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, >> please share them. >> >> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue >> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class >> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are >> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, >> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. >> ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the >> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John >> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim >> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor >> Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a >> comment on that issue. >> >> There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but >> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation >> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that >> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently >> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses >> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) >> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing >> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding >> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, >> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. >> >> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all >> who take the time to review its outcomes. >> >> Joel. >> >> 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> >> "Sort Down" to see in order] >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> >> >> -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto: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
Hi all,
even briefer before I leave my desk: - meeting (virtually) more often than once a year is great, but weekly might be tough for many of us. How about monthly sessions? - dwc has quite a few stuck proposals in the issue tracker. How about revisiting dwc governance rules in Sweden? Monthly issue reviews/votes could be a new addition.
Markus
On 23 Jul 2014, at 14:56, Anne Thessen annethessen@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all I agree with Rob. I've actually been doing a lot of thinking about this sort of thing (2nd point). I am definitely "in" for any attempt to organize meetings and funding. anne
On 7/23/2014 8:51 AM, Robert Guralnick wrote:
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote: Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
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
-- Anne E. Thessen, Ph.D. The Data Detektiv, Owner and Founder Ronin Institute, Research Scholar 443.225.9185 _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guralnick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM To: Steve Baskauf Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edumailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edumailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu> wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582tel:%28615%29%20343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942tel:%28615%29%20322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
*From:*tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu
wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing listtdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 tel:%28615%29%20343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 tel:%28615%29%20322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Steve, I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steven J. Baskauf Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM To: Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote: I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guralnick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM To: Steve Baskauf Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edumailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edumailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu> wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582tel:%28615%29%20343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942tel:%28615%29%20322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG's issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John's proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [ mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and
attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger
question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
*Issue 1.* The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
*Action needed:* Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
*Issue 2.* At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
*Action needed:* Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). *Note: *If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller@mobot.org mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org> wrote:
Steve, I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG's issues while holding down a full time, paid job. Chuck *From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem. The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time. Steve On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote: I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process. The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager. The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John's proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences. The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while. Chuck *From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance). 1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point. 2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen. Best, Rob On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu <mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu>> wrote: Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel. To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job. I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago. The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well. The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore. Steve [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG joel sachs wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote: > >> Hi Joel, >> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues? > > Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process > for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue > Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by > the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. > So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to > ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see > our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and > so thought it made sense to inform the list. > >> To elicit further >> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action? >> >> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is >> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion. > > I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to > lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the > proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to > deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The > category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc > classes. > > Cheers, > Joel. > > > >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu <mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>> >> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 - 226 in >> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe >> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered >> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core >> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the >> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was >> reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence. >> >> The background for this is that, for some time, a number of >> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to >> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In >> the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics >> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be >> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be >> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a >> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core >> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding >> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the >> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, >> please share them. >> >> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue >> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class >> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are >> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, >> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. >> ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the >> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John >> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim >> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor >> Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a >> comment on that issue. >> >> There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but >> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation >> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that >> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently >> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses >> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) >> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing >> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding >> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, >> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. >> >> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all >> who take the time to review its outcomes. >> >> Joel. >> >> 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> >> "Sort Down" to see in order] >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> >> >> -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Thanks for pushing this Steve!
There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName. The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227 for background discussion see also: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151
Markus
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
Issue 1. The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
Action needed: Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
Issue 2. At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
Action needed: Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). Note: If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote: Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steven J. Baskauf Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM To: Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guralnick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM To: Steve Baskauf Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Markus - am I right that this issue isn't at an actionable state yet? From the tracker it appears that discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been achieved yet.
I don't mean to be a PITA but I'm with Steve in that it's really key here to keep this thread focused solely on those issues that have already been settled and are merely awaiting being inducted into the official standard. Like Steve, I see great danger in any attempt to bundle these with other issues and requests that aren't clearly at this same point.
-hilmar
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Markus Döring mdoering@gbif.org wrote:
Thanks for pushing this Steve!
There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName. The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227 for background discussion see also: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151
Markus
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
*Issue 1.* The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
*Action needed:* Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
*Issue 2.* At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
*Action needed:* Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). *Note: *If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [ mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.http://bioimages.vanderbilt.eduhttp://vanderbilt.edu/trees
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
Thanks, Hilmar. Yes, with my Executive hat on I need clear guidance on what awaits TDWG Executive action. If the rest needs more discussion or is ready to be sent to the Executive but hasn't yet been, that's another thread.
Thanks for summarizing the issues, Steve.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@nescent.org wrote:
Markus - am I right that this issue isn't at an actionable state yet? From the tracker it appears that discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been achieved yet.
I don't mean to be a PITA but I'm with Steve in that it's really key here to keep this thread focused solely on those issues that have already been settled and are merely awaiting being inducted into the official standard. Like Steve, I see great danger in any attempt to bundle these with other issues and requests that aren't clearly at this same point.
-hilmar
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Markus Döring mdoering@gbif.org wrote:
Thanks for pushing this Steve!
There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName. The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227 for background discussion see also: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151
Markus
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
*Issue 1.* The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
*Action needed:* Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
*Issue 2.* At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
*Action needed:* Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). *Note: *If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG's issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John's proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [ mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.http://bioimages.vanderbilt.eduhttp://vanderbilt.edu/trees
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
-- Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi Hilmar,
I was under the impression we had reached a consensus some time ago. Peter Desmet summarized 2 options in 2012 [1] after which we agreed on creating two new terms [2] with Peter, GBIF and CoL as immediate "users". Since then I am not aware of any alternative proposals or doubting discussions - until that very recent short comment from Chuck.
Not sure what to say really. I find it hard to know when a consensus is reached and how to react when there is no reaction. But seems this indeed is nothing for Cyndi yet but more for DwC enthusiasts.
Markus
[1] http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2012-March/002882.html [2] http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2014-February/003203.html
On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:16, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@nescent.org wrote:
Markus - am I right that this issue isn't at an actionable state yet? From the tracker it appears that discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been achieved yet.
I don't mean to be a PITA but I'm with Steve in that it's really key here to keep this thread focused solely on those issues that have already been settled and are merely awaiting being inducted into the official standard. Like Steve, I see great danger in any attempt to bundle these with other issues and requests that aren't clearly at this same point.
-hilmar
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Markus Döring mdoering@gbif.org wrote: Thanks for pushing this Steve!
There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName. The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227 for background discussion see also: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151
Markus
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
Issue 1. The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
Action needed: Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
Issue 2. At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
Action needed: Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). Note: If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote: Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steven J. Baskauf Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM To: Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guralnick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM To: Steve Baskauf Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
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
-- Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
I only went (and should be able to go) by the tracker. If consensus *has* been established, then you should update the tracker item such that that fact becomes clear, and who signed on to that consensus. As is, there are questions raised, and one answer provided. It's not clear to me as an observer whether the answer settles the issue (it doesn't look to me like it does), or whether more discussion is needed.
-hilmar
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Markus Döring mdoering@gbif.org wrote:
Hi Hilmar,
I was under the impression we had reached a consensus some time ago. Peter Desmet summarized 2 options in 2012 [1] after which we agreed on creating two new terms [2] with Peter, GBIF and CoL as immediate "users". Since then I am not aware of any alternative proposals or doubting discussions - until that very recent short comment from Chuck.
Not sure what to say really. I find it hard to know when a consensus is reached and how to react when there is no reaction. But seems this indeed is nothing for Cyndi yet but more for DwC enthusiasts.
Markus
[1] http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2012-March/002882.html [2] http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2014-February/003203.html
On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:16, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@nescent.org wrote:
Markus - am I right that this issue isn't at an actionable state yet? From the tracker it appears that discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been achieved yet.
I don't mean to be a PITA but I'm with Steve in that it's really key here to keep this thread focused solely on those issues that have already been settled and are merely awaiting being inducted into the official standard. Like Steve, I see great danger in any attempt to bundle these with other issues and requests that aren't clearly at this same point.
-hilmar
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Markus Döring mdoering@gbif.org wrote:
Thanks for pushing this Steve!
There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName. The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227 for background discussion see also: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151
Markus
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Cyndi, OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
*Issue 1.* The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to the list).
*Action needed:* Guidance from the executive about how to handle this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
*Issue 2.* At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as issues 205-226.
*Action needed:* Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to derail these issues). *Note: *If these proposed changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled "What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?" [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204 [3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list [4] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_...
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Steve,
I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s issues while holding down a full time, paid job.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem.
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time.
Steve
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process.
The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager.
The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
Chuck
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [ mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.http://bioimages.vanderbilt.eduhttp://vanderbilt.edu/trees
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
-- Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Cyndi: OK, this email has the non-DwC issues:
There are many recommendations in the VoMaG report [1] and I won't summarize them here because that's what the report is for. But specific action items for the executive related to process are:
*Issue 1:* Get the ball rolling on fixing the vocabulary maintenance process. This is section 2.6.2 of the report. There are two components to fixing this. A. Kill the stalled Standards Documentation Specification [2], which is unfinished, unworkable, and not broad enough. The TDWG process allows this since the task group tasked to do it hasn't come through in a timely fashion. B. Charter a task group that is tasked with writing a general Vocabulary Maintenance Specification that would create formatting guidelines for both human readable documents (i.e. web pages) and machine readable documents (i.e. RDF). This component would replace the killed Standards Documentation Specification. The Vocabulary Maintenance Specification would also describe a generalized system for making changes to existing TDWG vocabularies. This would replace the Term Change Policy of the Darwin Core Namespace Policy [3]. Audubon Core was adopted under the assumption that this would happen. This is critical, and part of why the DwC issues in the previous email are a mess.
*Action needed: *Make it happen. I don't know who is supposed to do this. Either the executive should do it themselves or press one of the standing interest groups to do it.
*Issue 2:* Get interest groups and task groups to do their jobs (Recommendations 2.15 and 2.16). There are many inactive and stalled task groups. The TDWG process has a mechanism for taking care of this.
*Action needed: *The executive should find out which groups have reported progress. Dead task groups and stalled specifications are supposed to go away. Non-dead groups should do something at least once a year.
If I went into more detail than this there wouldn't have been a point in writing the report.
Steve
[1] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 [2] http://www.tdwg.org/standards/147/ [3] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges
Cynthia Parr wrote:
Hi all,
I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our best to juggle our many responsibilities.
Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this group.
Cyndy TDWG Chair
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller@mobot.org mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org> wrote:
Steve, I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG administration, including the ratification process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG's issues while holding down a full time, paid job. Chuck *From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steven J. Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to Darwin Core I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to fix that problem. The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary management is a little more complicated. But again a group of volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer time. Steve On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote: I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards ratification process. The TDWG standards ratification process is described at http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review Manager. The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John's proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences. The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some focused attention, at least for a while. Chuck *From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Guralnick *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM *To:* Steve Baskauf *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance). 1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point. 2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen. Best, Rob On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu <mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu>> wrote: Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel. To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job. I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago. The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well. The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore. Steve [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG joel sachs wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote: > >> Hi Joel, >> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues? > > Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process > for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue > Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by > the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. > So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to > ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see > our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and > so thought it made sense to inform the list. > >> To elicit further >> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action? >> >> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is >> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion. > > I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to > lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the > proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to > deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The > category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc > classes. > > Cheers, > Joel. > > > >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu <mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>> >> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 - 226 in >> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe >> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered >> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core >> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the >> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was >> reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence. >> >> The background for this is that, for some time, a number of >> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to >> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In >> the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics >> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be >> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be >> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a >> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core >> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding >> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the >> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, >> please share them. >> >> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue >> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class >> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are >> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, >> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. >> ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the >> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John >> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim >> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor >> Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a >> comment on that issue. >> >> There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but >> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation >> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that >> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently >> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses >> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) >> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing >> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding >> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, >> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. >> >> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all >> who take the time to review its outcomes. >> >> Joel. >> >> 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> >> "Sort Down" to see in order] >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> >> >> -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
This is beginning to resemble responses to a request for comments. Is that what we are doing? If so, can we have an official declaration of that?
With respect to Rob's point 1: we already have an organism/individual class. Its existence is implied by the existing term dwc:individualID. What the proposal does is to try to describe clearly what kinds of things could reasonably have their identifier be the value of dwc:individualID. The proposal is not really about creating "new" classes, but rather about cleaning up the mess that we currently have with unclear definitions and having two terms in different namespaces (dwc: and dwctype:) that are apparently the same thing. I won't say more here because the rationale for the proposal is given as clearly and succinctly as possible at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204
There are basically three separate issues that we are dealing with in this thread.
The first issue is dealing with the proposed changes. There is an existing process for adding and changing DwC terms. It's a bit clunky and inefficient, but it has worked in the past. At least nine people have expended considerable effort to organize the Documenting Darwin Core session, hammer out a consensus definitions, and get them into the issue tracker. Let the system as it exists proceed, and if the proposals are inadequate, then revise or reject them. There is no reason to delay that process, however imperfect it is.
The second issue is about the function of TDWG, which includes revising the DwC "Namespace Policy" for dealing with term additions and changes, and which includes the role and function of the TAG. Again there has been significant legwork already done to make concrete recommendations on how to deal with this. Let the TDWG Chair and Executive take action on these recommendations, either by fiat or creation of a task group. There is a process for this kind of thing: http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/ . Use it.
The third issue involves the mixing of DwC and BCO. I have indicated in the past that I support BCO development because it has the potential to bring clarity to murky definitions. However, it is not clear that directly linking the Darwin Core vocabulary semantically to an ontology like BCO is a good idea. We've already done that with the RDF definition of Material Sample. At the time, I thought that was OK, but after hearing Joel's talk at the TDWG meeting [1] I've changed my mind. After considerable reflection, I don't think that a clear case has been made for what tangible benefits will be gained by tying a general purpose vocabulary like Darwin Core directly in RDF to an OBO ontology like BCO. By "tangible benefits", I mean showing what semantic reasoning will be facilitated by that linkage. What are the use cases? Give actual examples (i.e. via SPARQL or using an OWL reasoner) of how that reasoning will be accomplished? I will write no more about this here, since I've blogged in detail about this elsewhere [2]. I think TDWG has already made a mistake once by setting out to construct the TDWG Ontology without a clear understanding of what concrete things would be accomplished by the effort. Rob is now suggesting tying the management of a ratified TDWG standard to the maintenance of an Ontology that is being developed independently of the TDWG standards process. I don't know if that would even be allowable under the rules of TDWG and even if it is, I think it's unwise without first having a discussion within TDWG about what such a linkage would facilitate.
We really should not be mixing up these three issues. That's my fault for bringing up the process question in the same email as comments about the concrete proposals. But they really need to be dealt with separately, by means that are appropriate for each of them.
Steve
[1] http://www.tdwg.org/fileadmin/2013conference/slides/Sachs_DwC_as_a_Model.ppt... [2] http://baskauf.blogspot.com/2014/05/confessions-of-rdf-agnostic-part-6.html in the section "Linking and the Biocollections Ontology" and those that follow.
Robert Guralnick wrote:
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The
larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel. To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job. I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago. The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well. The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore. Steve [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG joel sachs wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote: > >> Hi Joel, >> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues? > > Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process > for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue > Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by > the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. > So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to > ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see > our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and > so thought it made sense to inform the list. > >> To elicit further >> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action? >> >> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is >> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion. > > I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to > lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the > proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to > deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The > category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc > classes. > > Cheers, > Joel. > > > >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu <mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>> >> wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in >> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe >> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered >> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core >> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the >> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was >> reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. >> >> The background for this is that, for some time, a number of >> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to >> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In >> the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics >> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be >> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be >> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a >> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core >> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding >> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the >> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, >> please share them. >> >> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue >> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class >> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are >> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, >> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. >> (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the >> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John >> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim >> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor >> Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a >> comment on that issue. >> >> There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but >> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation >> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that >> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently >> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses >> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) >> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing >> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding >> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, >> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. >> >> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all >> who take the time to review its outcomes. >> >> Joel. >> >> 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> >> "Sort Down" to see in order] >> _______________________________________________ >> tdwg-content mailing list >> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >> >> >> >> -- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Yeah. What he said.
Aloha,
Rich
P.S. I was going to write a detailed response myself, but Steve has obviated that need by capturing the main points I had planned to make (and more) – and much more clearly and effectively than I could have achieved.
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steve Baskauf Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:34 AM To: Robert Guralnick Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [External] Re: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
This is beginning to resemble responses to a request for comments. Is that what we are doing? If so, can we have an official declaration of that?
With respect to Rob's point 1: we already have an organism/individual class. Its existence is implied by the existing term dwc:individualID. What the proposal does is to try to describe clearly what kinds of things could reasonably have their identifier be the value of dwc:individualID. The proposal is not really about creating "new" classes, but rather about cleaning up the mess that we currently have with unclear definitions and having two terms in different namespaces (dwc: and dwctype:) that are apparently the same thing. I won't say more here because the rationale for the proposal is given as clearly and succinctly as possible at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204
There are basically three separate issues that we are dealing with in this thread.
The first issue is dealing with the proposed changes. There is an existing process for adding and changing DwC terms. It's a bit clunky and inefficient, but it has worked in the past. At least nine people have expended considerable effort to organize the Documenting Darwin Core session, hammer out a consensus definitions, and get them into the issue tracker. Let the system as it exists proceed, and if the proposals are inadequate, then revise or reject them. There is no reason to delay that process, however imperfect it is.
The second issue is about the function of TDWG, which includes revising the DwC "Namespace Policy" for dealing with term additions and changes, and which includes the role and function of the TAG. Again there has been significant legwork already done to make concrete recommendations on how to deal with this. Let the TDWG Chair and Executive take action on these recommendations, either by fiat or creation of a task group. There is a process for this kind of thing: http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/ . Use it.
The third issue involves the mixing of DwC and BCO. I have indicated in the past that I support BCO development because it has the potential to bring clarity to murky definitions. However, it is not clear that directly linking the Darwin Core vocabulary semantically to an ontology like BCO is a good idea. We've already done that with the RDF definition of Material Sample. At the time, I thought that was OK, but after hearing Joel's talk at the TDWG meeting [1] I've changed my mind. After considerable reflection, I don't think that a clear case has been made for what tangible benefits will be gained by tying a general purpose vocabulary like Darwin Core directly in RDF to an OBO ontology like BCO. By "tangible benefits", I mean showing what semantic reasoning will be facilitated by that linkage. What are the use cases? Give actual examples (i.e. via SPARQL or using an OWL reasoner) of how that reasoning will be accomplished? I will write no more about this here, since I've blogged in detail about this elsewhere [2]. I think TDWG has already made a mistake once by setting out to construct the TDWG Ontology without a clear understanding of what concrete things would be accomplished by the effort. Rob is now suggesting tying the management of a ratified TDWG standard to the maintenance of an Ontology that is being developed independently of the TDWG standards process. I don't know if that would even be allowable under the rules of TDWG and even if it is, I think it's unwise without first having a discussion within TDWG about what such a linkage would facilitate.
We really should not be mixing up these three issues. That's my fault for bringing up the process question in the same email as comments about the concrete proposals. But they really need to be dealt with separately, by means that are appropriate for each of them.
Steve
[1] http://www.tdwg.org/fileadmin/2013conference/slides/Sachs_DwC_as_a_Model.ppt... [2] http://baskauf.blogspot.com/2014/05/confessions-of-rdf-agnostic-part-6.html in the section "Linking and the Biocollections Ontology" and those that follow.
Robert Guralnick wrote:
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582 tel:%28615%29%20343-4582 , fax: (615) 322-4942 tel:%28615%29%20322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Yep. What \He/ (Rich) said. Recursively.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
Yeah. What he said.
Aloha,
Rich
P.S. I was going to write a detailed response myself, but Steve has obviated that need by capturing the main points I had planned to make (and more) – and much more clearly and effectively than I could have achieved.
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Baskauf *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:34 AM *To:* Robert Guralnick
*Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] Re: Proposed changes to Darwin Core
This is beginning to resemble responses to a request for comments. Is that what we are doing? If so, can we have an official declaration of that?
With respect to Rob's point 1: we already have an organism/individual class. Its existence is implied by the existing term dwc:individualID. What the proposal does is to try to describe clearly what kinds of things could reasonably have their identifier be the value of dwc:individualID. The proposal is not really about creating "new" classes, but rather about cleaning up the mess that we currently have with unclear definitions and having two terms in different namespaces (dwc: and dwctype:) that are apparently the same thing. I won't say more here because the rationale for the proposal is given as clearly and succinctly as possible at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204
There are basically three separate issues that we are dealing with in this thread.
The first issue is dealing with the proposed changes. There is an existing process for adding and changing DwC terms. It's a bit clunky and inefficient, but it has worked in the past. At least nine people have expended considerable effort to organize the Documenting Darwin Core session, hammer out a consensus definitions, and get them into the issue tracker. Let the system as it exists proceed, and if the proposals are inadequate, then revise or reject them. There is no reason to delay that process, however imperfect it is.
The second issue is about the function of TDWG, which includes revising the DwC "Namespace Policy" for dealing with term additions and changes, and which includes the role and function of the TAG. Again there has been significant legwork already done to make concrete recommendations on how to deal with this. Let the TDWG Chair and Executive take action on these recommendations, either by fiat or creation of a task group. There is a process for this kind of thing: http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/ . Use it.
The third issue involves the mixing of DwC and BCO. I have indicated in the past that I support BCO development because it has the potential to bring clarity to murky definitions. However, it is not clear that directly linking the Darwin Core vocabulary semantically to an ontology like BCO is a good idea. We've already done that with the RDF definition of Material Sample. At the time, I thought that was OK, but after hearing Joel's talk at the TDWG meeting [1] I've changed my mind. After considerable reflection, I don't think that a clear case has been made for what tangible benefits will be gained by tying a general purpose vocabulary like Darwin Core directly in RDF to an OBO ontology like BCO. By "tangible benefits", I mean showing what semantic reasoning will be facilitated by that linkage. What are the use cases? Give actual examples (i.e. via SPARQL or using an OWL reasoner) of how that reasoning will be accomplished? I will write no more about this here, since I've blogged in detail about this elsewhere [2]. I think TDWG has already made a mistake once by setting out to construct the TDWG Ontology without a clear understanding of what concrete things would be accomplished by the effort. Rob is now suggesting tying the management of a ratified TDWG standard to the maintenance of an Ontology that is being developed independently of the TDWG standards process. I don't know if that would even be allowable under the rules of TDWG and even if it is, I think it's unwise without first having a discussion within TDWG about what such a linkage would facilitate.
We really should not be mixing up these three issues. That's my fault for bringing up the process question in the same email as comments about the concrete proposals. But they really need to be dealt with separately, by means that are appropriate for each of them.
Steve
[1] http://www.tdwg.org/fileadmin/2013conference/slides/Sachs_DwC_as_a_Model.ppt... [2] http://baskauf.blogspot.com/2014/05/confessions-of-rdf-agnostic-part-6.html in the section "Linking and the Biocollections Ontology" and those that follow.
Robert Guralnick wrote:
Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
- To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition and
attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
- Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger
question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen.
Best, Rob
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms" (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge. I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal. The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual). So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public comment months ago.
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as well.
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure anymore.
Steve
[1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype: namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings at TDWG
joel sachs wrote:
Hi John,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
Hi Joel, Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the process for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the Issue Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification. So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to see our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar, and so thought it made sense to inform the list.
To elicit further commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If that is correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer not to lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the dwc classes.
Cheers, Joel.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote: Hi Everyone,
I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 - 226 in the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were entered back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus that was reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence. The background for this is that, for some time, a number of TDWGers have been working towards an applicability statement to provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In the course of this work, it became apparent that the semantics of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order to be usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define terms in a way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the most part, been realized. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them. Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals in Issue 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of a class to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious, primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class. (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on translating the notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as a comment on that issue. There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the deprecation of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is that dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed) dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues regarding how it would be used. This will likely be left as future work, perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014. Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and to all who take the time to review its outcomes. Joel. 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" -> "Sort Down" to see in order] _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
participants (12)
-
Anne Thessen -
Bob Morris -
Chuck Miller -
Cynthia Parr -
Hilmar Lapp -
joel sachs -
John Wieczorek -
Markus Döring -
Richard Pyle -
Robert Guralnick -
Steve Baskauf -
Steven J. Baskauf