Dear TAG,
If no one disagrees with Lee that I should "move as I think best" (see below), then on my trip to town from the field next week (probably Thursday, subject to weather conditions), I will:
1) Update a few pending term Comments. These fall into the class of simple errata, as they don't affect semantics and won't result in new versions of the terms. 2) Change the dcterms:type controlled vocabulary to be purely Dublin Core. Change the documentation to reflect this change and add a formal Decision. 3) Change the controlled vocabulary recommendation for basisOfRecord to reflect biodiversity-specific terms (PreservedSpecimen, HumanObservation, etc.) as string literals. Add a formal Decision. 4) Dispense with the idea of the recordClass. This term would only be useful in flat text-based files, and it's functionality can be achieved (albeit with slightly more complexity) with the basisOfRecord.
I will prepare these changes, ready to commit them next week if there is no cry of outrage. If there is a cry, I'll do my best to accommodate it.
John
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Lee Belbin leebel@netspace.net.au wrote:
Hi John
This issue was on the agenda for the Executive Committee meeting but we did not get time in Montpellier to address it. DwC is moving faster than the Exec so until we can define an updated strategy, I'd suggest that you move as you think best. The issues that come to my mind are
That we have to be careful not to generate a target that movesfaster than community acceptance. The Wiki approach to life is fine for emerging understanding but the punctuated component of punctuated equilibrium needs more considered thought when applied to standards.
TDWG’s process was designed with consensus to the fore. Proposedchanges to the ‘standard’ need consensus approval by the ‘Darwin Core community’
Do we need an independent (of the Darwin Core Community)person/group to ‘sign off’ on updates as we do now? If the person/group is independent, then they are likely to know less than the community that developed the standard. If they are a group of more than 3, they probably move slowly.
Lee
Lee Belbin
TDWG Secretariat
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM, John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
Dear TAG,
On 23 October a solution to existing problems with the use of dwc:basisOfRecord and dcterms:type as published in the current Darwin Core standard was proposed. Discussions on tdwg-content leading up to and since that proposal support the addition of a term called recordClass as the pragmatic approach that requires less ongoing management than an alternative invoking a new type vocabulary. This message is to forge the way to the first Darwin Core term changes following the published Namespace Policy (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges). The proposed changes fall under two of the classes of changes, 3.3 (Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms) and 3.4 (Addition of Darwin Core terms declarations to existing Darwin Core namespaces). I propose to draft Decisions (see http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/decisions/index.htm) for review by the TAG following the 30-day prescribed review period (next week). I just wanted to send this introductory message in anticipation to open up the floor for any questions or commentary, as this is the first time this process has been invoked.
John