This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
________________________________ From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Nico Cellinese [ncellinese@flmnh.ufl.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 4:04 a.m. To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [tdwg-content] NESCent Phyloinformatics VoCamp
NESCent Phyloinformatics VoCamp
OPEN CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
Integrating diverse biological data with the historical process of evolution is a grand challenge for 21st century biology. The interoperability of data from diverse fields (e.g., genetics, ecology, biodiversity, biomedicine) requires a technology infrastructure based on formalized, shared vocabularies. Developing such vocabularies is a community project. In order to build controlled vocabularies and ontologies, the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent: http://nescent.orghttp://nescent.org/) is sponsoring a "Phyloinformatics VoCamp".
We invite scientists from diverse sub-disciplines to apply for this event, as explained below. The application deadline is September 18, 2009. More information about motivation, plans, and preliminary ideas is available online at http://bit.ly/VoCamp_Proposal. Feel free to disseminate this notice to colleagues who may be interested.*
A VoCamp (http://vocamp.orghttp://vocamp.org/) is an intense, hands-on, working meeting with face-to-face interactions between a diverse group of people focused on vocabulary and ontology design, development and application. The Phyloinformatics VoCamp will include ontology and vocabulary developers from relevant efforts, experts on knowledge representation and reasoning, and users and developers of integrative applications that use these ontologies.
This event will partially overlap with the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG: http://tdwg.orghttp://tdwg.org/) Annual Conference in Montpellier, France, November 9-13, 2009. The VoCamp is an activity of the TDWG Interest Group on Phylogenetics Standards (http://wiki.tdwg.org/Phylogenetics) and is partly supported by TDWG and the Université Montpellier.
GOALS AND ACTIVITIES -------------------- The objective of the event is to connect previously disparate ontology development efforts, stakeholder communities, and interoperability initiatives with shared objectives. Aside from sharing knowledge, expertise, and best practices, our goal is to build-out existing ontology resources in a hands-on manner in terms of ontological rigor, semantic richness, and modularity that supports effective reuse.
We also plan to have programming expertise and activities present at the event, such as for necessary large-scale transformations, and especially for proof-of-concept applications that directly apply the ontologies being developed.
On a long-term basis, we anticipate that the event, if successful, will give rise to similarly structured follow-up events organized by the participating stakeholder communities, such as TDWG, SONet (http://sonet.ecoinformatics.orghttp://sonet.ecoinformatics.org/), and OBO (http://www.obofoundry.orghttp://www.obofoundry.org/).
ORGANIZATION ------------ The VoCamp will be 4 days in duration during November 7-11, 2009 and is co-located with the TDWG annual conference (http://www.tdwg.org/conference2009) in Montpellier, France. The first two days (Nov 7-8) will be dedicated entirely to VoCamp and the remainder of the event (Nov 10-11) will overlap with TDWG 'workshops days'. Participants will have the opportunity, and are encouraged, to interact with TDWG participants and attend conference sessions outside of the VoCamp.
The specific vocabulary development targets will be selected by the participants partly in advance through a dedicated area on a wiki, a mailing list, and one or more conference calls, and partly on-site through an Open Space activity. The exact agenda for the event will be developed similarly, but will be largely devoted to ontology and vocabulary development time. At the event itself, participants will self-organize into small subgroups focused on particular targets. The VoCamp will conclude with a wrap-up session, and a report presented to the TDWG conference audience.
We also anticipate that several "boot camps" will be needed to ensure a productive event for all participants, for example on ontology design and engineering, reasoning, and infrastructure for collaborative development of ontologies.
We welcome comments and suggestions for issues in ontology development that are not explicitly addressed here or in our proposal but that could be addressed at the event. Please email the organizers at vocamp1@nescent.orgmailto:vocamp1@nescent.org with any suggestions.
HOW TO APPLY ------------ The application consists of your cv and your responses to 6 questions about your experience, skills, objectives, support, and commitment to open software development. To apply, please fill out the online form at http://bit.ly/VoCamp_Form by September 18, and submit your CV to the organizers at vocamp1@nescent.orgmailto:vocamp1@nescent.org. NESCent will provide funds in support of expenses, including travel, accommodation, registration, and meals. Pending the final amount of funds available and the support requested by the participants, sponsorship may need to be capped. Logistical and travel details will be communicated to accepted and confirmed participants.
We specifically encourage applications from members of under- represented groups, specifically women and minorities, and from graduate students and post-docs. If you have questions or are unsure whether to apply, please contact an organizer or write to vocamp1@nescent.orgmailto:vocamp1@nescent.org .
Please understand that funding and space for this event are limited. We also need to balance a critical mass of expertise in specific areas with broad participation. Therefore, not all qualified applicants can be guaranteed acceptance.
Yours,
The Organizing Committee
Arlin Stoltzfus, Chair (University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute) Nico Cellinese (University of Florida) Karen Cranston (Field Museum of Natural History) Hilmar Lapp (NESCent) Sheldon McKay (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, iPlant Collaborative) Enrico Pontelli (New Mexico State University)
* This announcement is being sent to the following lists: evoldir, TDWG, SSB, nexml, phylows, CDAO, SONet, GBIF, Ecolog, TAXACOM.
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
...from an independent source.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, John R. WIECZOREKtuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
I was just thinking to that the "locality" type component should be influenced by other geo components within TDWG - ideally it probably should be linked to TDWG regions, dublic core, ISO, or other vocab?
Also, there is probably a time element in this. But I don't think we need to go there. :-)
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:52 p.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
I don't know what the current thinking is regarding the invasive species work and the DwC, but what you're asking for, Kevin, seems to me to be a summary judgement about the occurrence (presence) of a species in a geographic region. I think individual organism occurrence records (note I don't use species occurrence) can be tagged with an attribute indicating that the record can be used for distribution analysis (but that may need to be further refined into native, naturalized (=invasive?), and cultivated/captive).
I think the invasive species folks need to weigh in here about their use cases: data they want to analyze about organisms, versus summary statements they want to make about taxa.
My two cents,
-Stan
________________________________________ From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:08 PM To: tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
I was just thinking to that the "locality" type component should be influenced by other geo components within TDWG - ideally it probably should be linked to TDWG regions, dublic core, ISO, or other vocab?
Also, there is probably a time element in this. But I don't think we need to go there. :-)
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:52 p.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Absolutely, the invasive species people need to have their input here. Invasive species data is a great use case of biostatus data.
There should be allowance for invasive attributes in the new Darwin Core, considering the invasive species group attempted to extend darwin core previously.
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.
Specimens can provide a "present" biostatus, but not "absent", nor biostatus origin, such as "exotic". So they are a source of biostatus data, but I dont think they are objects that biostatus is strictly attributed to.
Kevin
________________________________________ From: Blum, Stan [SBlum@calacademy.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 2:47 p.m. To: Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
I don't know what the current thinking is regarding the invasive species work and the DwC, but what you're asking for, Kevin, seems to me to be a summary judgement about the occurrence (presence) of a species in a geographic region. I think individual organism occurrence records (note I don't use species occurrence) can be tagged with an attribute indicating that the record can be used for distribution analysis (but that may need to be further refined into native, naturalized (=invasive?), and cultivated/captive).
I think the invasive species folks need to weigh in here about their use cases: data they want to analyze about organisms, versus summary statements they want to make about taxa.
My two cents,
-Stan
________________________________________ From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:08 PM To: tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
I was just thinking to that the "locality" type component should be influenced by other geo components within TDWG - ideally it probably should be linked to TDWG regions, dublic core, ISO, or other vocab?
Also, there is probably a time element in this. But I don't think we need to go there. :-)
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:52 p.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised biostatus for a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans) and see if that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the chance to look into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
I've been struggling with this issue for over 10 years now. I have yet to find an elegant solution. What it boils down to is something along the following:
According to [SourceReference], the status of Taxon [Taxon Concept Circumscription] at locality [Location Circumscription] during/at [Time/Time Span] is: "X"
The SourceReference is impoprtant, because it says who asserted this "biostatus" for this taxon at this locality.
Kevin is right that most people think of these sorts of status as being a function of a Taxon Concept, whereas individual organism records provide evidence (e.g., for presence at Time "T").
Kevin's earlier comment about a temporal component is also relevant, as the status can change over time.
The problem with "X" is that some people think of it as present/absent/abundant/rare/etc.; some think of it in terms of origin as per Kevin's emails (introduced/native/etc.); and some think of it from a biogeographic perspective (endemic/naturalized/etc.); and other terms can also be used (extinct/endangered/vagrant/established/etc.). Sometimes the purposes are mixed, and are not mutually-exclusive (e.g. a taxon can be present, introduced, and established at the same time; or it can be absent, endemic, and extinct at the same time).
I think this sort of information is important, but I think it requires a lot more thought/discussion before it can be encoded within DwC.
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Absolutely, the invasive species people need to have their input here. Invasive species data is a great use case of biostatus data.
There should be allowance for invasive attributes in the new Darwin Core, considering the invasive species group attempted to extend darwin core previously.
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.
Specimens can provide a "present" biostatus, but not "absent", nor biostatus origin, such as "exotic". So they are a source of biostatus data, but I dont think they are objects that biostatus is strictly attributed to.
Kevin
From: Blum, Stan [SBlum@calacademy.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 2:47 p.m. To: Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
I don't know what the current thinking is regarding the invasive species work and the DwC, but what you're asking for, Kevin, seems to me to be a summary judgement about the occurrence (presence) of a species in a geographic region. I think individual organism occurrence records (note I don't use species occurrence) can be tagged with an attribute indicating that the record can be used for distribution analysis (but that may need to be further refined into native, naturalized (=invasive?), and cultivated/captive).
I think the invasive species folks need to weigh in here about their use cases: data they want to analyze about organisms, versus summary statements they want to make about taxa.
My two cents,
-Stan
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:08 PM To: tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
I was just thinking to that the "locality" type component should be influenced by other geo components within TDWG - ideally it probably should be linked to TDWG regions, dublic core, ISO, or other vocab?
Also, there is probably a time element in this. But I don't think we need to go there. :-)
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:52 p.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Makes sense, but need a "second" of the motion to include.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, thats a good start, however, biostatus is a more
complicated topic than that, eg whther it is "native" may depend on the region you are looking at - so region data needs to be included, and whether it is present or not also is another important piece of data.
biostatus is also really a name/concept oriented piece of
data, not specimen/occurrence. So maybe useful to have as domain (RDF) independent??
So I suggest a "class" fro biostatus that includes: Biostatus (eg Endemic, Indigenous, Exotic) BiostatusOccurrence (eg Present, Absent) BiostatusRegion (eg, New Zealand)
so you could have biostatus about a taxon in NZ like "Aus bus" has biostatus in NZ, Exotic and Present and a more lacalised
biostatus for
a region of NZ, eg "Aus bus" has biostatus in Canterbury NZ, Exotic and Absent
Make sense?
Kevin
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of John
R. WIECZOREK [tuco@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:53 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Hi Kevin,
Not exactly sure what is meant by biostatus given what you have written, but have a look at the term establishmentMeans (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans)
and see if
that is the same or similar.
John
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
This is a bit out of the blue, and I haven't had the
chance to look
into it fully, but...
is there allowance for Biostatus in the new Dariwn Core format?
An imprtant, and common field - ie Biostatus occurrence, locality, and status, eg "Present Indigenous"
Kevin
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any
attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
________________________________________ From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/ captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie
- taxon concept id - biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc) - biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc) - date / temporal - publication / source - locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
________________________________ From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m. To: Blum, Stan Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
________________________________________ From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nzmailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edumailto:tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Kevin
Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular extension. The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled Distribution. The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is conceptually tied to the core taxon class via taxonID.
the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and is tied to a vocabulary for this term at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tVs-UWMXnkD3slwIE8T336w&output=ht... under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
source, locality, and other elements are included. This stuff is in draft for us but it seems fairly congruent.
David
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie
- taxon concept id
- biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
- biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
- date / temporal
- publication / source
- locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m. To: Blum, Stan Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/ captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Yes, I see. It was a bit late at night. :-)
Those properties look like a good start. What is the plan with these "extension" properties and the Dariwn Core standard process? Will they be included? Are they planned to be submitted for the next round/version?
I don't particular see these as "extensions". More like related terms and properties (probably the same thing really). "Extension" seemed to be more relevant when we were dealing mainly with XML schemas, where they really needed to be extended. But I think now we have taken a more modeling/ontological approach, we could just add them as additional properties under a different heading. There is no need for an implementer of DwC2 to use ALL fields, just those that make sense for their specific use case - and I think this is where TDWG could (or will need to) have an influence - ie how a standard is applied to specific use cases.
Another thought - the locality stuff really needs to be thought through a bit more - probably has been by some subgroups in TDWG?? Ie need to tie in with other Geo standards and ontology efforts in the Geo world. Regions, Spatial coords/params etc... May have already been thought of, I'm not sure.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 12:13 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tuco@berkeley.edu Wieczorek; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Kevin
Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular extension. The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled Distribution. The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is conceptually tied to the core taxon class via taxonID.
the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and is tied to a vocabulary for this term at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tVs-UWMXnkD3slwIE8T336w&output=ht... under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
source, locality, and other elements are included. This stuff is in draft for us but it seems fairly congruent.
David
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie
- taxon concept id - biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc) - biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc) - date / temporal - publication / source - locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
________________________________ From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.orgmailto:dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m. To: Blum, Stan Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edumailto:tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
________________________________________ From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nzmailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edumailto:tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
If the status terms can be satisfactorily defined, agreed upon without protracted deliberation and submitted following the process described at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/SubmittingIssues#New_Term_Request), then there is no reason not to include them now in the version as a response to public comment. If they are not at that state of maturity, DwC shouldn't wait for them.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, I see. It was a bit late at night. :-)
Those properties look like a good start. What is the plan with these "extension" properties and the Dariwn Core standard process? Will they be included? Are they planned to be submitted for the next round/version?
I don’t particular see these as "extensions". More like related terms and properties (probably the same thing really). "Extension" seemed to be more relevant when we were dealing mainly with XML schemas, where they really needed to be extended. But I think now we have taken a more modeling/ontological approach, we could just add them as additional properties under a different heading. There is no need for an implementer of DwC2 to use ALL fields, just those that make sense for their specific use case - and I think this is where TDWG could (or will need to) have an influence - ie how a standard is applied to specific use cases.
Another thought - the locality stuff really needs to be thought through a bit more - probably has been by some subgroups in TDWG?? Ie need to tie in with other Geo standards and ontology efforts in the Geo world. Regions, Spatial coords/params etc… May have already been thought of, I'm not sure.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 12:13 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tuco@berkeley.edu Wieczorek; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Kevin
Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular extension. The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled Distribution. The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is conceptually tied to the core taxon class via taxonID.
the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and is tied to a vocabulary for this term at
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tVs-UWMXnkD3slwIE8T336w&output=ht...
under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
source, locality, and other elements are included. This stuff is in draft for us but it seems fairly congruent.
David
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie
taxon concept id
biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
date / temporal
publication / source
locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m. To: Blum, Stan Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
A diagram I just created to illustrate how I see the core TDWG models / Darwin Core / subgroup activities and uses cases fitting together.
http://202.27.243.4/tdwg/coremodel.jpg
Thoughts?
Kevin
-----Original Message----- From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 9:52 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
If the status terms can be satisfactorily defined, agreed upon without protracted deliberation and submitted following the process described at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/SubmittingIssues#New_Term_Request), then there is no reason not to include them now in the version as a response to public comment. If they are not at that state of maturity, DwC shouldn't wait for them.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Kevin RichardsRichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz wrote:
Yes, I see. It was a bit late at night. :-)
Those properties look like a good start. What is the plan with these "extension" properties and the Dariwn Core standard process? Will they be included? Are they planned to be submitted for the next round/version?
I don't particular see these as "extensions". More like related terms and properties (probably the same thing really). "Extension" seemed to be more relevant when we were dealing mainly with XML schemas, where they really needed to be extended. But I think now we have taken a more modeling/ontological approach, we could just add them as additional properties under a different heading. There is no need for an implementer of DwC2 to use ALL fields, just those that make sense for their specific use case - and I think this is where TDWG could (or will need to) have an influence - ie how a standard is applied to specific use cases.
Another thought - the locality stuff really needs to be thought through a bit more - probably has been by some subgroups in TDWG?? Ie need to tie in with other Geo standards and ontology efforts in the Geo world. Regions, Spatial coords/params etc... May have already been thought of, I'm not sure.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 12:13 a.m. To: Kevin Richards Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tuco@berkeley.edu Wieczorek; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
Kevin
Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular extension. The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled Distribution. The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is conceptually tied to the core taxon class via taxonID.
the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and is tied to a vocabulary for this term at
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tVs-UWMXnkD3slwIE8T336w&output=ht...
under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
source, locality, and other elements are included. This stuff is in draft for us but it seems fairly congruent.
David
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other stuff, but not biostatus in particular. But the same propeties could be applied to biostatus, ie
taxon concept id
biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
date / temporal
publication / source
locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other standards.
Kevin
From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen@gbif.org] Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m. To: Blum, Stan Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
... and we use gna/gbif terms for biostatus which we split in two, occurrenceStatus and nativeness. Pretty much all other terms used in this extension are qualifiers providing additional context to name and area:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&gid=2
On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, David Remsen (GBIF) wrote:
We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=ht...
DR
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...
The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/ captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.
-Stan
From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM To: Blum, Stan; tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
<snip>
I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely. _______________________________________________ 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 (6)
-
Blum, Stan -
David Remsen (GBIF) -
John R. WIECZOREK -
Kevin Richards -
Markus Döring -
Richard Pyle