I like that idea, John!

On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls rlwalls2008@gmail.com wrote: This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that is necessary for DwC at this juncture.

Ramona

---

Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org wrote: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."

---

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100 From: John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments To: TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Message-ID: CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.

The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for reference.

This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless further discussion arises resulting in amendments.

Cheers,

John

The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would like to move to comments:

datasetID occurrenceID sex lifeStage reproductiveCondition behavior establishmentMeans occurrenceStatus organismID organismScope materialSampleID eventID eventDate eventTime locationID higherGeographyID continent waterBody islandGroup island country countryCode municipality locality minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters locationAccordingTo decimalLatitude decimalLongitude geodeticDatum coordinateUncertaintyInMeters pointRadiusSpatialFit verbatimCoordinates verbatimLatitude verbatimLongitude verbatimCoordinateSystem verbatimSRS footprintWKT footprintSRS footprintSpatialFit georeferencedDate georeferenceVerificationStatus geologicalContextID identificationID dateIdentified identificationVerificationStatus taxonID scientificName subgenus taxonRank nomenclaturalCode taxonomicStatus measurementID measurementType measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate relationshipOfResource relationshipEstablishedDate

while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:

institutionID collectionID basisOfRecord dynamicProperties recordedBy preparations disposition associatedMedia associatedReferences associatedSequences associatedTaxa otherCatalogNumbers associatedOccurrences associatedOrganisms previousIdentifications higherGeography georeferencedBy georeferenceSources typeStatus identifiedBy identificationReferences higherClassification measurementDeterminedBy

RDF/SKOS notation makes items like labels, definitions, examples very explicit:

<skos:Concept rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/terms/accessRights%22%3E

<skos:historyNote rdf:about="modified" dc:date="2008/01/14"/>

<skos:prefLabel xml:lang="fr">Droits d'accès</skos:prefLabel>

<skos:definition xml:lang="en">Information about who can access the resource ....

<skos:example xml:lang="de">Zugriffsrechte können Informationen ...

</skos:Concept>

The use of SKOS for describing property terms is discussed on page 4 of the TDWG Vocabulary Management Task Group (VoMaG) report [1]. Does use of SKOS in this context bring any semantic baggage?

Éamonn

[1] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246

From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek Sent: 05 February 2015 15:35 To: Markus Döring Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

I thought you would, since you mentioned it independently even before Ramona did. :-)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:

I like that idea, John!

On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls rlwalls2008@gmail.com wrote:

This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that is necessary for DwC at this juncture.

Ramona

------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org wrote:

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100 From: John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments To: TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Message-ID: <CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com mailto:YE%2B-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.

The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for reference.

This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless further discussion arises resulting in amendments.

Cheers,

John

The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would like to move to comments:

datasetID occurrenceID sex lifeStage reproductiveCondition behavior establishmentMeans occurrenceStatus organismID organismScope materialSampleID eventID eventDate eventTime locationID higherGeographyID continent waterBody islandGroup island country countryCode municipality locality minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters locationAccordingTo decimalLatitude decimalLongitude geodeticDatum coordinateUncertaintyInMeters pointRadiusSpatialFit verbatimCoordinates verbatimLatitude verbatimLongitude verbatimCoordinateSystem verbatimSRS footprintWKT footprintSRS footprintSpatialFit georeferencedDate georeferenceVerificationStatus geologicalContextID identificationID dateIdentified identificationVerificationStatus taxonID scientificName subgenus taxonRank nomenclaturalCode taxonomicStatus measurementID measurementType measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate relationshipOfResource relationshipEstablishedDate

while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:

institutionID collectionID basisOfRecord dynamicProperties recordedBy preparations disposition associatedMedia associatedReferences associatedSequences associatedTaxa otherCatalogNumbers associatedOccurrences associatedOrganisms previousIdentifications higherGeography georeferencedBy georeferenceSources typeStatus identifiedBy identificationReferences higherClassification measurementDeterminedBy

I like the idea in principle. Would it be subject to the conventions of the RDF Guide? That is, would it be explicitly declared as taking a literal object and be accompanied by an IRI version dwcattributes:exampleIRI? Would this require adding to the scope of the Guide? (Is the scope of the Guide sufficient for the current enterprise in general?)

The proposals to use skos:example are appealing on several grounds. But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Bob

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notes

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:

I like that idea, John!

On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls rlwalls2008@gmail.com wrote:

...

This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that is necessary for DwC at this juncture.

Ramona

---

Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org wrote:

...

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."

---

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100 From: John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments To: TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Message-ID:

CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.

The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for reference.

This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless further discussion arises resulting in amendments.

Cheers,

John

The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would like to move to comments:

datasetID occurrenceID sex lifeStage reproductiveCondition behavior establishmentMeans occurrenceStatus organismID organismScope materialSampleID eventID eventDate eventTime locationID higherGeographyID continent waterBody islandGroup island country countryCode municipality locality minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters locationAccordingTo decimalLatitude decimalLongitude geodeticDatum coordinateUncertaintyInMeters pointRadiusSpatialFit verbatimCoordinates verbatimLatitude verbatimLongitude verbatimCoordinateSystem verbatimSRS footprintWKT footprintSRS footprintSpatialFit georeferencedDate georeferenceVerificationStatus geologicalContextID identificationID dateIdentified identificationVerificationStatus taxonID scientificName subgenus taxonRank nomenclaturalCode taxonomicStatus measurementID measurementType measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate relationshipOfResource relationshipEstablishedDate

while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:

institutionID collectionID basisOfRecord dynamicProperties recordedBy preparations disposition associatedMedia associatedReferences associatedSequences associatedTaxa otherCatalogNumbers associatedOccurrences associatedOrganisms previousIdentifications higherGeography georeferencedBy georeferenceSources typeStatus identifiedBy identificationReferences higherClassification measurementDeterminedBy

Is dwcattributes normative and its properties covered by the RDF guide?

We already have various properties defined in that namespace to document dwc terms, all of which take literal values: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/attributes/dwcattributes.rdf

I’m not entirey convinced it buys us a lot if we mix terms from all sorts of sources (and thereby their different conventions) rather than having them all defined explicitly in this one namespace.

Markus

On 05 Feb 2015, at 17:31, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:

Using a property from a well-known vocabulary like SKOS would be good. But there is the problem that Bob mentioned. Also, I'm not clear about the entailments that would result from skos:note and skos:example being declared as annotation properties. [1]

I think that the intention of the RDF guide was that as new properties were added to DwC, they would be birthed simultaneously in both the IRI-object and literal-object versions without necessitating a change to the guide itself. Whether that is allowed technically, I don't know. When we add terms to the normative DwC document, they show up in the non-normative documents of the standard (e.g. the quick reference guide) without additional action. If that's not a problem, then adding them to the list in the RDF guide also should be able to happen routinely.

This is a good topic for the vocabulary maintenance task group (currently in the process of formation).

Steve

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.rdf

Bob Morris wrote:

...

I like the idea in principle. Would it be subject to the conventions of the RDF Guide? That is, would it be explicitly declared as taking a literal object and be accompanied by an IRI version dwcattributes:exampleIRI? Would this require adding to the scope of the Guide? (Is the scope of the Guide sufficient for the current enterprise in general?)

The proposals to use skos:example are appealing on several grounds. But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Bob

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notes

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:

...

I like that idea, John!

On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls rlwalls2008@gmail.com wrote:

...

This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that is necessary for DwC at this juncture.

Ramona

---

Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, tdwg-content-request@lists.tdwg.org wrote:

...

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."

---

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100 From: John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments To: TDWG Content Mailing List tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Message-ID:

CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.

The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for reference.

This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless further discussion arises resulting in amendments.

Cheers,

John

The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would like to move to comments:

datasetID occurrenceID sex lifeStage reproductiveCondition behavior establishmentMeans occurrenceStatus organismID organismScope materialSampleID eventID eventDate eventTime locationID higherGeographyID continent waterBody islandGroup island country countryCode municipality locality minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters locationAccordingTo decimalLatitude decimalLongitude geodeticDatum coordinateUncertaintyInMeters pointRadiusSpatialFit verbatimCoordinates verbatimLatitude verbatimLongitude verbatimCoordinateSystem verbatimSRS footprintWKT footprintSRS footprintSpatialFit georeferencedDate georeferenceVerificationStatus geologicalContextID identificationID dateIdentified identificationVerificationStatus taxonID scientificName subgenus taxonRank nomenclaturalCode taxonomicStatus measurementID measurementType measurementUnit measurementDeterminedDate relationshipOfResource relationshipEstablishedDate

while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:

institutionID collectionID basisOfRecord dynamicProperties recordedBy preparations disposition associatedMedia associatedReferences associatedSequences associatedTaxa otherCatalogNumbers associatedOccurrences associatedOrganisms previousIdentifications higherGeography georeferencedBy georeferenceSources typeStatus identifiedBy identificationReferences higherClassification measurementDeterminedBy

Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500 Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:

...

But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to do reasoning. In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms, but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.

SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with significant knowledge engineering consequences.

-Paul

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

Since IAO 'example of usage' is an annotation property, there aren't really any logical consequences to be worried about. IAO provides a reduced artifact just for ontology metadata:

Docs: https://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/wiki/OntologyMetadat...

Ontology: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/iao/ontology-metadata.owl

This is a small ontology with zero imports.

Thanks, Jim

On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:

Yes.

iao brings in a number of imports with significant implications and a particular high level view of the world.

-Paul

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:21:33 -0300 John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

...

Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:

...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500 Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:

...

But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to do reasoning. In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms, but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.

SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with significant knowledge engineering consequences.

-Paul

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

-- 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

____________________________________________ James P. Balhoff, Ph.D. National Evolutionary Synthesis Center 2024 West Main St., Suite A200 Durham, NC 27705 USA

As far as I know, iao:example of usage also allows both literals and URLs as the range. However, I fail to see a serious problem with that, and to me, the benefits of re-using existing properties far outway the benefits I could see from having a separate set of properties for literals. Also, I don't know anyone who reasons over annotations properties, although I am sure there are those who do.

In response to Paul Morris's comment, simply using iao:example of usage does not import all of IAO, and therefore does not include any of the "baggage" of using IAO.

Ramona

------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:

Like others, I like the idea in principle, but I’m not well-versed in the implications of alternate approaches to implementation to weigh in on that. Whatever technical solution is adopted, I would like to hope that it supports the representation of more than a single example; as sometimes it is useful to show alternate forms of acceptable content.

Aloha,

Rich

*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *John Wieczorek *Sent:* Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:22 AM *To:* Paul J. Morris *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500 Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:

...

But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to do reasoning. In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms, but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.

SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with significant knowledge engineering consequences.

-Paul

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

Thanks John,

mostly repeating what I said earlier I would prefer to coin the new example term in the existing dwcattributes namespace. It feels more consistent, is very straight forward and as you say we can always declare same as relations elsewhere if that is really useful to anyone. I cannot see any immediate advantage of reusing either the skos or the iao term over minting a new one in the single dwcattributes namespace that helps documenting our dwc terms.

Markus

On 20 Mar 2015, at 14:14, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to summarize my understanding of the state of the proposal to put term content recommendations in comments consistently, rather than in the definitions where they can sometimes be found. There has been universal support for this idea.

A second part of the proposal was to take this opportunity to separate the examples from the comments using a distinct property to do so in the rdf definitions of the terms. There has also been universal support for this idea.

Discussion revolved around how to accomplish the second part of the proposal. I originally proposed a new attribute "dwcattributes:example", which would be included once for every distinct example of term usage - with potentially many per Darwin Core term. There was universal support for the idea of enabling this capability, though there was mixed opinion about using an existing term instead of minting a new one in the dwcattributes namespace. Specifically, "skos:example" and "iao:example of usage" were discussed. Potential problems with "skos:example" were pointed out. Similar concerns about "iao:example of usage" were addressed, leaving this option still open for consideration.

It is not entirely clear technically (to me, anyway) how the annotation property "iao:example of usage" would be imported into the normative rdf document. I'm unaware of an OWL to RDF import mechanism. That doesn't mean much, because I am not an expert. If there is not, I suppose we would have to define an rdf file ourselves for the iao term and import that into dwcattributes or into the normative Darwin Core rdf file(s) directly. I don't think this would be a rigorous solution, but it would demonstrate our intent fairly well, especially if there were comments to that effect in the rdf files. Some guidance here might help us make a final decision on this topic.

If there is no clear and rigorous solution to the rdf import problem from IAO, then it may just be easier to coin "dwcattributes:example" as originally proposed, at least for now, and worry about it's equivalence to "iao:example of usage" on the ontology side (BCO).

I would really like to get the broader issue resolved soon, as we do already have consensus on making the contents of the definitions and comments consistent. If we can't resolve how to separate the examples (even though we agree that it is a good idea), I will propose that we forget that added part of the proposal and just deal with the consistency issue first.

Comments encouraged, as always.

Cheers,

John

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Ramona Walls rlwalls2008@gmail.com wrote: As far as I know, iao:example of usage also allows both literals and URLs as the range. However, I fail to see a serious problem with that, and to me, the benefits of re-using existing properties far outway the benefits I could see from having a separate set of properties for literals. Also, I don't know anyone who reasons over annotations properties, although I am sure there are those who do.

In response to Paul Morris's comment, simply using iao:example of usage does not import all of IAO, and therefore does not include any of the "baggage" of using IAO.

Ramona

---

Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote: Like others, I like the idea in principle, but I’m not well-versed in the implications of alternate approaches to implementation to weigh in on that. Whatever technical solution is adopted, I would like to hope that it supports the representation of more than a single example; as sometimes it is useful to show alternate forms of acceptable content.

Aloha,

Rich

From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:22 AM To: Paul J. Morris Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris mole@morris.net wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500 Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:

...

But skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take literals or references [1]. To me, that weighs more than the baggage of minting two new terms.

Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to do reasoning. In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms, but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.

SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with significant knowledge engineering consequences.

-Paul

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