I was wondering if something like the following would be an acceptable compromise for those who would like to expose their data using the geo vocabulary. geo:lat geo:long dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters The idea would be that RDF formatted in this way would be acceptable as DarwinCore. This would not prevent others from using the traditional dwc vocabulary. The problem for many is that by using only the dwc version they use the ability to take advantage of many existing tools and api's. - Pete On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:01 AM, joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu> wrote:
All,
When representing observation records in RDF, there are advantages to using Dublin Core and Geo (http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#) namespaces where possible. For example, if we use DC:date, and geo:lat, geo:long, instead of DwC:eventDate, DwC:lat, and DwC:long, then Linked Data browsers can automatically map the records, plot them on a timeline, etc.
My question is: What are the disadvantages to doing this? (For example, is this going to break someone's DwC validator?)
Thanks - Joel.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 GeoSpecies Knowledge Base About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base ------------------------------------------------------------