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.<div><br></div><div><div>geo:lat</div><div>geo:long</div><div>dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters</div>
<div><br></div><div>The idea would be that RDF formatted in this way would be acceptable as DarwinCore.</div><div><br></div><div>This would not prevent others from using the traditional dwc vocabulary.</div><div><br></div>
<div>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&#39;s.</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:01 AM, joel sachs <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu">jsachs@csee.umbc.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">All,<br>
<br>
When representing observation records in RDF, there are advantages to using Dublin Core and Geo (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#</a>)<br>
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.<br>

<br>
My question is: What are the disadvantages to doing this? (For example, is this going to break someone&#39;s DwC validator?)<br>
<br>
Thanks -<br><font color="#888888">
Joel.<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <br>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>