Pete, another custom non rdf application of it are the GBIF REST services, e.g.: http://data.gbif.org/ws/rest/occurrence/get/1003321
In regards of interoperable standards applicable to different architecture I would like to point out the revised Darwin Core Terms that are not tied to a technical implementation per se. Just like dublin core the darwin core group has preferred to provide several best practice guidelines on how to use the same dwc terms in the context of xml, rdf or simple text, our (gbif) latest favorite encoding. Because the terms are rather simple, it allows you to encode and transform the exact same data for a variety of technical architectures.
http://darwincore.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/terms/index.htm
Wouldn't it be great to have this minimal set of biodiversity concepts available for rdf(-a),xml,text,html, rss, micro formats & tagging? There is a discrepancy to the current lsid vocabularies of course as with all tdwg standards. But shouldn't we try to get this fixed and have a core set of terms available everywhere?
Personally I think this is a far more important issue than having globally unique ids. They would have to resolve to something meaningful anyway to be useful.
Markus
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:24, Bob Morris wrote:
Also, the Plazi EoL REST service for descriptions extracted from legacy literature has particularly minimal use of TaxonOccurrence objects. See sample, including restful service spec, at http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/SPM/PlaziEOLProject
Bob Morris
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Richards <RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz
wrote:
Pete
You should have sent something around on the mailing list, I could have given you an example of a TaxonOccurrence. Or perhaps you did and I missed it???
Anyway, with Herb IMI, Paul Kirk and I have set up an resolver to provider TaxonOccurrence RDF data,
see for example urn:lsid:herbimi.info:specimens:100069 (or http://lsid.herbimi.info/authority/metadata/?lsid=urn:lsid:herbimi.info:spec... in your browser). It also has an example of using Interaction data
- ie in this case a host plant (IPNI ID) of a fungus (Herb IMI
specimen) with an identification to a taxon concept and name (Index Fungorum name).
Jim - feel free to help improve the ideas and processes of TDWG if you find them that bad. :-)
Kevin
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org ] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries Sent: Friday, 24 April 2009 1:46 p.m. To: Jim Croft Cc: Bob Morris; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] Differences in thinking between TDWG and LinkedData groups about data sharing / integration
Hi Jim,
Thanks for keeping in good humor. :-)
I was trying to get my head around the TaxonOccurrence standard so I could rewrite my observation records,
and was hoping on finding some examples. That experience, and some related issues, made me a little irritable,
for that I am sorry.
It might be useful to make up a test set. It does not even need to be real. In my experience, this is where
you really start to see if the standard does what you want it to do. Many times I have thought that I had
everything figured out, only to discover after loading data into my triple store that something will not work
or something that used to work was now broken by the addition of a new feature.
I am not bothered by the idea of branding, it just seemed that the it was being confused with the goal of
persistence in what seemed to be a unproductive thread.
Thanks again for being amused, tolerant and insightful. :-)
- Pete
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Jim Croft jim.croft@gmail.com wrote:
Can't let this great opportunity pass... :)
It is not just us. It is the regrettable human condition. See also: http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/management/showArticle.jh...
<diatribe_alert/>
One of the intriguing and enigmatic things about TDWG is that it does not seem to respect its own standards, preferring to invent another set rather than fix or enhance what is already there. More than the 'not invented here' syndrome, we have to deal with 'not invented here this week' and the user is left with the impression of a happy self-absorbed group chasing a flock of flitting butterflies - 'oh, that's pretty, I will try and catch that one'. Yep, just the human condition. In another context, Roger H, http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/346, has provided the best description of TDWG and its standards I think I have ever heard: "It is kind of like the guy selling seagulls on the beach. You give him £5 and he points into the sky and says 'That one is yours'. Yes he is providing a service but the relationship that counts is the one between you and the gull." This is both profound and frightening in how close it is to reality.
On the complexity and costs of implementation, you are absolutely right. Taxonomic database standards have moved out of the domain of taxonomists, they no longer understand what we are talking about (hell, I no longer understand what we are talking about. And the rest of you? c'mon now, be honest... :) and we are left with this relationship of 'trust us' paternalism that I do not think is all that healthy - we all trust and respect Microsoft, right?. It is getting increasingly difficult give advice to a bod with a beat up PC in a developing country on what they should do - the alphabet soup surrounding GUIDS and the like just does not cut it when the mind set is an Excel spreadsheet with a bunch of intuitive headings. Oh, I'm sorry - you mean it is not just in developing countries? There is a widening gap between 'Joe the Taxonomist' and business of taxonomy data standards that we do not seem to be able to address (do we even care?). We used to be able to give our staff in the herbarium a TDWG standard and say 'this is what we have to do.' Not anymore... Ah, the good ole days... Maybe the answer lies in the hegemony of a new and benevolent 'MSOffice for Taxonomy'. Could work, but I do not think it is going to be particularly satisfying.
On the reuse issue, Greg W argues that we do not do nearly enough of this and I agree with him. He argues that TDWG should focus on the standard and not the application and implementation of the standard and has proposed that in our vocabularies we should adopt the principles of nomenclatural priority, that is, going back to *Dublin* Core, adding stuff chronologically from other other standards, including our own, until there is no option other than to invent another one, or there is nothing in our domain left to standardize. For taxonomists there is something inherently attractive in this approach - don't describe a taxon where it already exists, don't invent a standard where one already exists. To retrofit this and untangle all the synonymy and homonymy in our existing standards and implementations is going to take a lot of work though. But the vocabularies and ontologies are a good start.
On the 'branding, issue, it is not so much branding but attribution. Apart from the moral and legal issues, it is unscientific not to attribute, source and provide lineage for data. The is no optionality. We have to do it. Even if the initial supplier 'disappears'. *Especially* if the initial supplier disappears. Attribution (branding if you like) is absolutely essential for credibility. If someone is not going to do it, they can not have our data, and we will not use theirs.
On the architectural issue, I can not really get all that hung up on it. If a standard is good, it should be able to be implemented in a number of architectures (isn't that almost a definition of interoperability?). Where things get 'interesting' is when architecture (and the continuum towards application) becomes the standard or part of the standard. TDWG needs to constantly ask itself to what extent it needs to get involved with implementation of the standards it promotes. I would argue 'not at all', but this is another discussion.
And the 'insider' cabalistic nature of TDWG? What can I say - it has always been this way. A standard attracts a champion and the champion establishes a fiefdom of acolytes around it. Yep, the human condition. And it sort of works. Some of the time. (btw - another artifact of the human condition - your brilliant ideas are never perceived as such until someone else has them - just ask poor old Wallace how he is feeling this year). A downside of this approach is that the various TDWG standards are very poorly coordinated between each other - this is something we should be able to do something about.
We could piss on the TDWG tent from the outside, but you have to agree, it is much more satisfying to get inside the tent and piss on and piss off everyone in it... :)
<disclaimer>None of the above ideas are mine. I am following the TDWG standard practice of restating them without attribution :)
</disclaimer>
Ah... that was fun...
jim
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Peter DeVries pete.devries@gmail.com wrote:
Respectfully,
- Only certain classes of organizations will be able to
contribute since
the standard is requires special skills. Those groups that can pay
for
hardware and a person specific to this standard for perpetuity. I look at
this and
think that a number of groups that could be providers cannot
because of the
way the system is implemented. Why not have a simple RDF tar or zip
file format
that GBIF checks with a crawler every night? 2) There is very little reuse of existing vocabularies, geo for
instance.
Similar to the "not invented here mentality". 3) Discussions and decisions seem to be too much about making sure
that
providers keep their "brand" on the data even if they disappear. 4) Suggestions or alternative ways of thinking are rejected until
an insider
restates them without attribution 5) It is not at all clear how some of these decisions are made. It
appears
as if some people disagree, there is discussion. Then years later
there is
the same discussion. It seems that some smaller group keepspulling
everyone back to the same architectural decision. 6) Where are the example data sets? We should have some example
data sets
available to see if the standard can be used to answer real
questions?
Either they don't exist or they are only available to a few.I actually have nothing but praise for GBIF and uBio (except for
the minor
encoding thing), this more about trying to work within TDWG and
getting
stonewalled. I am having the same feelings about it that I had a
few years
ago, after which I left to try to make something that worked so I
could
proceed with my project. It probably was unfair to imply that the fiefdoms are by design,
rather than
a side effect of the implementation standards, and for that I
apologize.
- Pete
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bob Morris
morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
"described by anyone" is not the same as "described by anyone in
any way
convenient to the describer", so I find this quotation somewhat disingenuous. More precisely, I wonder what TDWG standard or
proposed
standard you find enables fiefdoms \in ways that are impossible
under some
other solution to the problem the standard addresses/.
Bob Morris
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com
wrote:
This paragraph below seems to encapsulate the differences in
thinking
between the linkeddata community and some of the TDWG people on how to best share biodiversity data. "The notion of a fabric of resources that are individually
described,
queried, and resolved may seem unmanageable or like science
fiction. For
organizations that are used to large, manual, centralized
efforts to
standardize on everything, it may seem anarchic to allow
resources to grow
organically and be described by anyone. The same people would
probably not
believe the Web possible in the first place if there were not
already ample
proof of its success." REST for Java developers, Part 4: The future is RESTful
From http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2009/jw-04-rest-series-4.html?page=... I think that some people may have lost sight of the goal of
making data
available to improve the understanding of our natural world and hopefully better manage our natural resources. It does not seem that creating a distributed network of fiefdoms
will
help us achieve this goal.
- Pete
I was led to this article by @janzemanek on twitter.
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466
--
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
--
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499
"Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality."
- Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924)
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
- attributed to Robert McCloskey, US State Department spokesman
--
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706
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
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag