New term resolution: dcterms:source
Darwin Core Issues 96: http://goo.gl/gOkAs
This issue has not been subject to public commentary.
The proposal seeks to add the term source from the Dublin Core vocabulary to the recommended record-level terms for the Darwin Core.
Open Issues: Determine if there is demand for this term from more than one "independent" party. I consider myself an independent party on behalf of VertNet, for which this term woud be a more general solution than the existing Darwin Core term dwc:occurrenceDetails, as it could apply to records of any Class rather than just for Occurrence.
Determine if there is any objection to include this term as recommended for use in the Darwin Core.
Determine if there is any objection to deprecating dwc:occurrenceDetails in favor of dcterms:source.
Here are the descriptions for the two terms for easy comparison:
dwc:occurrenceDetails - definition: "A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence." comment: "Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Occurrence"
dcterms:source - definition: "A related resource from which the described resource is derived." comment: "The described resource may be derived from the related resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system."
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
+1 for dcterms:source. Ideal for linking DwC records of any class to a source record. E.g. for a taxon like: http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/2891
Greg, I'm not sure I understand your latter concept and if dwc:occurrenceDetails is a fit term for it. In my opinion dwc:occurrenceDetails could be deprecated.
Peter
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:12, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com wrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:
I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
On 6 July 2011 19:47, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
but consider adding dcterms:source?
Gregor
I concur with that.
-Paul
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 06:53:01 +0200 Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 19:47, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
but consider adding dcterms:source?
Gregor
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference to the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source data." When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains richer data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails - just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote: I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
@Gregor - I didn't intend to remove dcterms:source from consideration, I just intended to keep dwc:occurrenceDetails.
It sounds like there is still support for dcterms:source independent of issues surrounding occurrenceDetails.
I like Markus' suggestion to generalize the term we have to something like the following, deprecating occurrenceDetails in favor of:
Term Name: recordUri Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/recordUri Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: recordUri Definition: A reference (publication, URI) to detailed information about the record. Comment: Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms . Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: recommended Date Issued: 2011-07-07 Date Modified: 2011-07-07 Has Domain: Has Range: Version: recordUri-2011-07-07 Replaces: occurrenceDetails-2009-04-24 Is Replaced By: Class: all ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/RecordURI
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference to the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source data." When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains richer data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails - just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to
remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote: I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all
have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is
derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition
or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
I think the original scope of occurrenceDetails is contained in dcterms
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isReferencedBy
or more general perhaps
http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation
??
Gregor
On 7 July 2011 18:27, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
@Gregor - I didn't intend to remove dcterms:source from consideration, I just intended to keep dwc:occurrenceDetails. It sounds like there is still support for dcterms:source independent of issues surrounding occurrenceDetails. I like Markus' suggestion to generalize the term we have to something like the following, deprecating occurrenceDetails in favor of: Term Name: recordUri Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/recordUri Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: recordUri Definition: A reference (publication, URI) to detailed information about the record. Comment: Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms. Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: recommended Date Issued: 2011-07-07 Date Modified: 2011-07-07 Has Domain: Has Range: Version: recordUri-2011-07-07 Replaces: occurrenceDetails-2009-04-24 Is Replaced By: Class: all ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/RecordURI On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference to the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source data." When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains richer data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails - just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote: I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
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
Except that the relationship meant by isReferencedBy is in the opposite direction. It would mean that "this record is referenced by some other resource." What we need is "this record references some other resource" which would be dcterms:references.
I could be convinced that dcterms:references is the general solution for what Markus has requested. Could Markus?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the original scope of occurrenceDetails is contained in dcterms
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isReferencedBy
or more general perhaps
http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation
??
Gregor
On 7 July 2011 18:27, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
@Gregor - I didn't intend to remove dcterms:source from consideration, I just intended to keep dwc:occurrenceDetails. It sounds like there is still support for dcterms:source independent of issues surrounding occurrenceDetails. I like Markus' suggestion to generalize the term we have to something
like
the following, deprecating occurrenceDetails in favor of: Term Name: recordUri Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/recordUri Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: recordUri Definition: A reference (publication, URI) to detailed information
about
the record. Comment: Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms. Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: recommended Date Issued: 2011-07-07 Date Modified: 2011-07-07 Has Domain: Has Range: Version: recordUri-2011-07-07 Replaces: occurrenceDetails-2009-04-24 Is Replaced By: Class: all ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/RecordURI On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference
to
the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source
data."
When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains
richer
data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails
just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net
wrote:
I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails
all
have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set
of
primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is
derived
from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a
publication as a
dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when
the
reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are
taken
directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the
record
is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
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
--
Dr. G. Hagedorn +49-(0)30-8304 2220 (work) +49-(0)30-831 5785 (private) http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn
This communication (including all attachments) is sent on a personal basis. It is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission is a violation of privacy rights and copyright.
yes, I am definitely happy with dcterms:references!
On Jul 7, 2011, at 21:37, John Wieczorek wrote:
Except that the relationship meant by isReferencedBy is in the opposite direction. It would mean that "this record is referenced by some other resource." What we need is "this record references some other resource" which would be dcterms:references.
I could be convinced that dcterms:references is the general solution for what Markus has requested. Could Markus?
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com wrote: I think the original scope of occurrenceDetails is contained in dcterms
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isReferencedBy
or more general perhaps
http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation
??
Gregor
On 7 July 2011 18:27, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
@Gregor - I didn't intend to remove dcterms:source from consideration, I just intended to keep dwc:occurrenceDetails. It sounds like there is still support for dcterms:source independent of issues surrounding occurrenceDetails. I like Markus' suggestion to generalize the term we have to something like the following, deprecating occurrenceDetails in favor of: Term Name: recordUri Identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/recordUri Namespace: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Label: recordUri Definition: A reference (publication, URI) to detailed information about the record. Comment: Example: "http://mvzarctos.berkeley.edu/guid/MVZ:Mamm:165861". For discussion see http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms. Type of Term: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property Refines: Status: recommended Date Issued: 2011-07-07 Date Modified: 2011-07-07 Has Domain: Has Range: Version: recordUri-2011-07-07 Replaces: occurrenceDetails-2009-04-24 Is Replaced By: Class: all ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/RecordURI On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
the original intent of the dc:source issue was "A URI link or reference to the source of this record. A link to a webpage or RESTful webservice is recommended. URI is mandatory format. Allows to link to richer source data." When writing this I had taxonomic dwc records in mind and I needed a way to capture a link to a webpage or service that potentially contains richer data. So originally the intent was exactly the same as occurrenceDetails - just not limited to occurrences.
how about a generic dwc:details(Uri) instead?
Markus
On Jul 6, 2011, at 19:47, John Wieczorek wrote:
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove occurrenceDetails.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote: I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
"A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were places to find additional information that was derived from some set of primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost certainly the other way around.
I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition or intent to occurrenceDetails.
-Paul
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated with OBIS as
recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
relatedInformation - Free text references to information not delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
and is currently defined as
occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most detailed information available about the Occurrence.
So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be only about Occurrences.
So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source, and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while allowing the same for all record types.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
I think the two terms are different.
my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is derived from the first.
I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken directly from a publication.
However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is also cited in a recent publication.
I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the latter concept, however.
Gregor
-- Paul J. Morris Biodiversity Informatics Manager Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
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
--
Dr. G. Hagedorn +49-(0)30-8304 2220 (work) +49-(0)30-831 5785 (private) http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn
This communication (including all attachments) is sent on a personal basis. It is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission is a violation of privacy rights and copyright.
On 7 July 2011 21:37, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
Except that the relationship meant by isReferencedBy is in the opposite direction. It would mean that "this record is referenced by some other resource." What we need is "this record references some other resource" which would be dcterms:references. I could be convinced that dcterms:references is the general solution for what Markus has requested. Could Markus?
Perhaps both is needed. My understanding was that if you have a specimen record, entered e.g. by a collection (but not "taken" from a publication), and the specimen is being referenced in a publication, isReferencedBy is the right property to point to the publication.
Gregor
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:37, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
Except that the relationship meant by isReferencedBy is in the opposite direction. It would mean that "this record is referenced by some other resource." What we need is "this record references some other resource" which would be dcterms:references. I could be convinced that dcterms:references is the general solution for what Markus has requested. Could Markus?
Perhaps both is needed. My understanding was that if you have a specimen record, entered e.g. by a collection (but not "taken" from a publication), and the specimen is being referenced in a publication, isReferencedBy is the right property to point to the publication.
For which there is a term dwc:associatedReferences. Even if this term isn't exactly the same as dcterms:isReferencedBy, this is getting into a concept different from the one being requested. If dcterms:isReferencedBy actually needed for real-world uses by multiple independent parties, then the case for it's addition should be made in the normal fashion ( http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges, section 3.4), with discussion in a different thread if the discussion has no bearing on the current topic.
Gregor
participants (5)
-
Gregor Hagedorn -
John Wieczorek -
Markus Döring -
Paul J. Morris -
Peter Desmet