Darwin Core Collection-related terms
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain). Submitter: Renato De Giovanni Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there. -----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group. Submitter: Renato De Giovanni Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
Hi John, Renato Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be: a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons. To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/ schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology". Just some thoughts, Tim On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there.
-----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi Tim, Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible. To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD: 1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id 2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code 3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms. Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates... Best Regards, -- Renato
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/ schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there.
-----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
I was just curious how the collectionCode and collectionID apply to datasets that are not part of things like university / museum / herbarium collections? The NCD description (http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code) says "Ontology describing the metadata returned for LSIDs that are used for natural collections records. i.e. curated groups of specimens." Under that description - I don't think that our data (as well as of many other institutions) would fit since we have more "observation" data and not much curated specimen data. But if I'm understanding the DWC schema correctly collectionCode and institutionCode are required elements? It would be nice if terms could be re-used in DWC and NCD, but my only concern is if the NCD definition is more narrow than the users of DWC then it becomes confusing. Thank you! Lynn Lynn Kutner NatureServe phone: (703) 797-4804 email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org http://www.natureserve.org/ -----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of renato@cria.org.br Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:52 AM To: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms Hi Tim, Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible. To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD: 1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id 2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code 3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms. Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates... Best Regards, -- Renato
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/ schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there.
-----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Hi Lynn, I think you must be referring to an outdated schema. None of the schemas presented within the body of the Darwin Core documentation (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm) has any required elements. For schemas, see Simple Darwin Core (SDC, http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm), especially the rules section (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#rules), and the SDC schema (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd). John On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Lynn Kutner<Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org> wrote:
I was just curious how the collectionCode and collectionID apply to datasets that are not part of things like university / museum / herbarium collections?
The NCD description (http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code) says "Ontology describing the metadata returned for LSIDs that are used for natural collections records. i.e. curated groups of specimens."
Under that description - I don't think that our data (as well as of many other institutions) would fit since we have more "observation" data and not much curated specimen data.
But if I'm understanding the DWC schema correctly collectionCode and institutionCode are required elements?
It would be nice if terms could be re-used in DWC and NCD, but my only concern is if the NCD definition is more narrow than the users of DWC then it becomes confusing.
Thank you! Lynn
Lynn Kutner NatureServe phone: (703) 797-4804 email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org http://www.natureserve.org/
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of renato@cria.org.br Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:52 AM To: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards, -- Renato
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/ schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there.
-----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ 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
In general I feel uneasy basing any standard on an unfinished ontology. Why not have the ontology, when development resumes, reuse terms from actual standards?
From the rest of the conversation on Collection-related terms in DwC it seems clear to me that, if we were to keep the terms in the DwC namespace, then they should be domain-less and their descriptions should omit the reference to Occurrences. Though these terms came from the idea of identifying specimen records within collections within institutions, they really can be applied more generically to any record within a dataset (collection) from a contributor (institution).
Dublin Core doesn't have an equivalent for our Collections (though, interestingly, they do have Dataset in their type vocabulary), but they do have dc:publisher, which is roughly what we mean by our InstitutionCode. So, we can solve part of our quandary by recommending that InstitutionCode be abandoned in DwC in favor of dc:publisher. NCD doesn't have use this concept, so no need to add it. collectionCode and collectionID can be made domain-less as well, since they can apply just as easily to Taxon or Locality as they can to Occurrence. Thinking along these same lines, datasetID could be made domain-less and then the DwC Dataset class could be abandoned. I made it in anticipation of having recomendations of further dataset metadata, but that never materialized. Without it, I don't see the need for the Dataset class, though the datasetID is still useful. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Lynn Kutner<Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org> wrote:
I was just curious how the collectionCode and collectionID apply to datasets that are not part of things like university / museum / herbarium collections?
The NCD description (http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code) says "Ontology describing the metadata returned for LSIDs that are used for natural collections records. i.e. curated groups of specimens."
Under that description - I don't think that our data (as well as of many other institutions) would fit since we have more "observation" data and not much curated specimen data.
But if I'm understanding the DWC schema correctly collectionCode and institutionCode are required elements?
It would be nice if terms could be re-used in DWC and NCD, but my only concern is if the NCD definition is more narrow than the users of DWC then it becomes confusing.
Thank you! Lynn
Lynn Kutner NatureServe phone: (703) 797-4804 email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org http://www.natureserve.org/
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of renato@cria.org.br Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:52 AM To: TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms
Hi Tim,
Nice summary. My preference is for b. Considering that NCD follows the same principles of this new DarwinCore version, I see no reason for duplicating the same term. No matter how much we try to keep boundaries clear between standards, there will always be some kind of semantic overlap between them. Having the same terms defined under different namespaces can be very confusing for users. I think TDWG should try to make things as reusable as possible.
To be more specific, I would suggest the following changes to NCD:
1) Remove the domain from collectionId and institutionId and rename them to "Id" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Id http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Id
2) Remove the domain from #acronymOrCoden (Collection) and rename it to "Code" so that the URI becomes:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#Code
3) Add a Code property in Institution (without a domain) making it:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Institution#Code
Then DarwinCore or any other standard can easily reuse these terms.
Depending on how this gets solved, yes, I think we should open the floodgates...
Best Regards, -- Renato
Hi John, Renato
Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:
a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode
My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc and also maintainability reasons.
To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the DublinCore Metadata Terms. Using these terms we can assemble models/ schemas etc. To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces (which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more difficult to grasp and maintain. I also wonder if going down the route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object properties in the TDWG ontology".
Just some thoughts,
Tim
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous recommendation can be made.
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionID
Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI to the term in NCD? Status: Accepted Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
Comment 2 by ren...@cria.org.br Currently the URI is:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not be bound to a domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes. I'm not sure if it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with this change. Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago) Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I think it should be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be proposed. I'll copy the whole issue thread there.
-----
From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
Reported by ren...@cria.org.br Term Name: collectionCode
Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably also suggest to change the NCD term from http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain). It would be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they participated in the NCD group.
Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
John R. WIECZOREK -
Lynn Kutner -
renato＠cria.org.br -
Tim Robertson