Greetings We would need a term to store the name of the person who has digitised a sample. The current Darwin Core does not seem to include such term. Dublin Core's "creator" is what we'd use. I wonder why not all of the Dublin Core's 15 basic terms are included in Darwin Core terms web page, but just a subset of them, which subset seems to be somewhat random to me? We could also use the DC term "contributor" or something for someone who has proof-read the digitisation result. I understand that nothing breaks if we use dc:creator because the Dublin Core schema loads it along with other elements. But because of this omission some applications like GBIF IPT omit it from their mapping capabilities, which is a problem. Your advise is sppreaciated, Hannu -- Hannu Saarenmaa, Project Manager Digitisation Centre of the Finnish Museum of Natural History Faculty of Science and Forestry University of Eastern Finland P.O. Box 111 FIN-80101 Joensuu Street address: Länsikatu 15, room 2C113 in Joensuu Science Park hannu.saarenmaa@helsinki.fi Telephone +358-13-251-5705 Mobile +358-50-4479668
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well. dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized. Gregor
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen. The person entering the metadata into the computer or that person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of detail in keeping separate records for those three types of resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to care about keeping separate records of who all of the different creators are either. The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is that the language on the specimen label, the language of other things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources. Steve Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized.
Gregor _______________________________________________ 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: VU Station B 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) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
Dear Steve, <snip>
Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources. </snip>
As an up-to-now passive watcher of this list and dwc/dc newbie, I am wondering how exactly one can make clear whether it is the specimen, image of metadata one is talking about? Thanks for clarifying! With best regards, Aaike On 14 Jan 2011, at 15:29, Steve Baskauf wrote:
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen. The person entering the metadata into the computer or that person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of detail in keeping separate records for those three types of resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to care about keeping separate records of who all of the different creators are either.
The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is that the language on the specimen label, the language of other things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources.
Steve
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized.
Gregor
-- Aaike De Wever BioFresh Science Officer Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90 mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93 email: <aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be> skype: aaikew AIM: aaike@mac.com LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever> BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be>
Well, within one's own database I guess that would depend on the kind of record structure you set up. In RDF it is clearer. For example in http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/collection/rdf/id/35259 you see an RDF document that describes two things: the Vanderbilt Arboretum, and the RDF document itself which describes the arboretum. They are demarcated within separate XML container elements. The element <tc:Collection rdf:about="urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:35259"> contains the metadata about the Arboretum itself, which is a physical, non-information resource. The element <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/collection/rdf/id/35259"> contains the metadata about the document describing the arboretum which is an information resource deliverable via the web. Both of these elements include a dc:created property. The arboretum's dc:created property has a string literal value of "1988" because that's when the arboretum was officially recognized as existing. The document has a dc:created property with a literal value of "2010-08-01 00:27:28" because that was the date when the metadata document was first created by Biodiversity Collections Index. In another example: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/51899.rdf the metadata describes an image, and the file containing the image metadata. The image description is in the <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/51899"> element with http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/51899 being the identifier for the image and the image metadata document description is in the <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/51899.rdf"> element. The image has a property <dcterms:creator rdf:resource="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/contact/baskauf"/> which says that the image was created by me (represented by the URI http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/contact/baskauf) and the metadata document has a property <dcterms:creator rdf:resource="http://biocol.org/urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:35115"/> which says that the metadata document was created by the Bioimages collection (represented by the URI http://biocol.org/urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:35115). So in both of these examples, the RDF explicitly states what the description is "about" by means of the rdf:about attribute in the opening tag of the XML element. Hope this helps and maybe somebody else can comment about this in other contexts. Steve Aaike De Wever wrote:
Dear Steve,
<snip>
Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources.
</snip>
As an up-to-now passive watcher of this list and dwc/dc newbie, I am wondering how exactly one can make clear whether it is the specimen, image of metadata one is talking about?
Thanks for clarifying!
With best regards, Aaike
On 14 Jan 2011, at 15:29, Steve Baskauf wrote:
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen. The person entering the metadata into the computer or that person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of detail in keeping separate records for those three types of resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to care about keeping separate records of who all of the different creators are either.
The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is that the language on the specimen label, the language of other things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources.
Steve
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized.
Gregor
-- Aaike De Wever BioFresh Science Officer Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels Belgium tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90 mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93 email: <aaike.dewever@naturalsciences.be> skype: aaikew AIM: aaike@mac.com LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever> BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> Belgian Biodiversity Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be>
_______________________________________________ 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: VU Station B 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) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
Good points. There seems to be a lot of potential use for dc:creator. However, one thing to consider is that dc:creator implies IPR issues. "observer" or "recorder" would be more neutral. For the specimen there is dwc:collector, although it is being used also for observations where nothing was collected, and where dwc:identifiedby might be a bit more correct, semantically. Hannu On 2011-01-14 16:29, Steve Baskauf wrote:
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen. The person entering the metadata into the computer or that person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of detail in keeping separate records for those three types of resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to care about keeping separate records of who all of the different creators are either. The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is that the language on the specimen label, the language of other things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources. Steve
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized.
Gregor _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
For the specimen there is dwc:collector, although it is being used also for observations where nothing was collected, and where dwc:identifiedby might be a bit more correct, semantically.
If I'm not mistaken, dwc:collector has been replaced with dwc:recordedBy. I definitely think that dwc:identifiedby is important, but is not analogous to collector/observer. The act of collecting or observing organisms in situ and the act of asserting a taxonomic identity to the organism are two very different roles. Often (especially for observations unvouchered by specimens or images), the same person/set of people play both roles (usually concurrently), but they should still be maintained as distinct roles. Aloha, Rich
Keep up the good work Steve! You are well on your way to inventing RDF. :-) Bob On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen. The person entering the metadata into the computer or that person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of detail in keeping separate records for those three types of resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to care about keeping separate records of who all of the different creators are either.
The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is that the language on the specimen label, the language of other things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created for three different types of resources.
Steve
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Using Creator is ok for the person digitizing the specimen (although contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who originally wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy. My comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then it was the person who digitized.
Gregor _______________________________________________ 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: VU Station B 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) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Associate, Harvard University Herbaria email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)
participants (6)
-
Aaike De Wever -
Bob Morris -
Gregor Hagedorn -
Hannu Saarenmaa -
Richard Pyle -
Steve Baskauf