Not sick... just Western Australian... different taxon and different LSID in that part of the world...
Well done on the introductory page Lee - a great starting point and springboard into deep TDWG.
It is a bit on the squeaky clean side though... could do with a section entitled 'Here be Monsters!' or similar...
We don't want people getting a false sense of security and a feeling that all is right with the world... if all was right with the world we would not need to be developing standards... A standard is, almost by definition, a response to something not working... :)
jim
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Piers Higgs Piers@gaiaresources.com.au wrote:
</lurk>
In the spirit of "sexy and compelling documentation" (Ben, you're sick), Lee has just finished editing two new resources for the TDWG community:
A Getting Started page for newcomers: http://www.tdwg.org/getting-started/
A Getting Started wiki http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/Starting/WebHome
The wiki in particular needs us all to start using to help newcomers to our community. If anyone sees posts like Lynette's please feel free to note down the issues and post suggestions or solutions in the wiki.
Nice work Lee!
Piers
<lurk> ________________________________ From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Piers Higgs Sent: Mon 18/05/2009 7:30 AM To: Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ...anewcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
</lurk>
Lee and I have had a few emails back and forth over the weekend and have started putting things together for newcomers (for those that didn't know, I am one of the volunteers that helps maintain the TDWG web sites).
We're in the process of setting up page content for a "Getting Started" link on the front page of the TDWG web site, and a wiki space for us (as a community, not just Lee and I) to document some of the issues newcomers face, as raised in this list. Thanks to all that provided us with the catalyst for thinking of this!
This "newcomers" wiki could also serve to host Roger's aspirations for somewhere to describe the bioinformatics community - we already have the tools and the volunteers to manage this wiki, so it seems like a simple thing for us to do - now who wants to help provide content?
Regarding ontologies and the tools to describe them, we could do something in the TDWG web space. Obviously a TWiki implementation isn't going to solve everyone's requirements, but is it worth us setting up a simple wiki to start with and moving on from there? If so, then I could set up an "ontology" wiki for people to play with under the TDWG site.
Let me know if there are any ideas/thoughts/content that you think would be useful for these pages.
Piers
<lurk>
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Lee Belbin Sent: Sunday, 17 May 2009 12:24 PM To: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... anewcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Chuck
I couldn't agree more. TDWG needs to continually ensure that its work is communicated effectively to a 'less technical' audience. At the start of the TDWG Infrastructure Project it was apparent that TDWG was not communicating effectively (or at all) to the bosses/supervisors of the TDWG attendees. Newcomers to TDWG are in the same boat.
Piers Higgs in a separate email, suggested that it isn't just a matter of which tool in relation to the TDWG ontology. I agree. It is (as I said above) a broader educational issue. Piers has suggested a "Getting started with TDWG" link on the TDWG home page. An excellent idea (and I really wonder why we haven't done this before now!). We do already have a fair bit of introductory (1-page type) material that I'd previously sponsored that can be pulled together into one area. I'll then undertake to see what I can do about chasing additional material along the lines you suggested Chuck to fill in the (many I fear!) gaps in understanding.
Lee
Lee Belbin TDWG Secretariat
-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Miller [mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org] Sent: Saturday, 16 May 2009 2:47 AM To: Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Lee, As you know, I am a proponent of the simple and the understandable, particularly for the folks like Lynette. I am glad to see a couple of appeals from the gallery to counterpoint the continuing pursuit of the complex issues. The biodiversity informatics/data community like it or not is primarily made up of those who do not spend their time expanding the limits of web-based semantic inference. It may very well be that the only viable solutions for some of the use cases of biodiversity can only be reached by semantic inference. But, the barrier to entry for folks like Lynnette (and there are many, many) is just too high and so solving those use cases by web-based semantics is simply out of reach for them. We must accept that.
We positively must enable the folks who do not understand triples, RDF, OWL, SPARQL and the rest to still be able to play in the global biodiversity data sandbox. We must continue to offer methods and techniques that do not require this level of knowledge. Call it a "light" version, or whatever you will, but I strongly believe the community at large needs it. Unfortunately, that "community at large" doesn't speak up on Taxacom or TDWG much. I fear it's because they can't follow the technical threads and like Lynette are baffled and discouraged.
TDWG has to continue to recognize the need to keep it simple, at least in part. It's always an 80-20 situation I think. That does not preclude continuing work on the deeper, triples-based approaches for the 20%. But, we must additionally and in parallel provide simpler, compatible approaches for the 80%. We need to listen to that 80%.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Lee Belbin Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:38 PM To: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Lynette, Greg, Gregor et al.,
I've only just caught up with this thread, but feel obliged to post (I sound like Rich).
A few months ago (and not for the first time), I came to exactly the same conclusion as you Lynette. There is I fear, a growing gap between the more technical members of TDWG and those who are joining TDWG from applications areas such as biology, taxonomy etc. As time goes on, this gap seems more evident, and nowhere is this more apparent than with the 'TDWG ontology'.
The TDWG ontology is probably the most important priority we currently have. Your comments about the use of the ontology to help newcomers understand the domain is spot on. I'd also say that the newcomers are in many cases, domain experts who have a lot to contribute to the ontology, but really can't in its present form. The ontology is also mandatory if we want to efficiently cross link all the various TDWG activities/groups. Recent comments about Darwin Core and the TDWG ontology is a prime example!
The ontology is priority-1 for TDWG, BUT (it is a big but), we need effective tools (preferably A web based tool) that would EASILY enable anyone (not just Protégé experts) to view (in various forms that were suitable for the purpose), manage, build, annotate, document, import and export bits or all of the ontology/vocabularies is helpful formats.
If TDWG has these issues with developing and using an effective ontology, plenty of others must have also! Surely?
I discussed this with Donald and he agreed and said that Greg and Garry were thinking about this as well (as Greg has suggested). I also discussed the ontology issue with Gail Kampmeier as she has a graduate student looking for a biodiversity informatics project - and this is a beauty. Markus Döring also said at the Fremantle meeting that he was keen to lead work on the ontology. I also discussed this same issue a month or so ago with Roger (post TONTO :), but I fear that Roger is in the 'techie' category and didn't fully grasp what I was trying to get across about SIMPLE etc. That's probably my fault. Your email Lynette seems to have got the point across better than I've done.
There is a meeting about the ontology scheduled on the Tuesday evening at eBiosphere where Donald, Eamonn, Karen Stocks, hopefully Roger and a few others plan to discuss the issues. Please let me know the key issues that COULD be addressed at that meeting. Thankfully there seems to be some critical mass building about quickly moving forward on the ontology. I'd like to see what I can do to ensure that it happens.
There is obviously nothing stopping work on aspects of the ontology such as Roger and Peter have suggested. If I can do anything about setting up a Wiki or similar easy tasks, please let me know.
Lee
Lee Belbin TDWG Secretariat
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Greg Whitbread Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2009 7:09 PM To: Lynette.Woodburn@csiro.au Cc: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Lynette,
Yes. I agree. To this end we (Garry is the one with the Twiki skills) are experimenting with ways of doing this using the TDWG wiki, one term per page described using dcmi /terms/ namepaces http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ , but alternatives do need to be considered before we make a start. I have just had another look at the MRTG Schema at http://www.keytonature.eu/wiki/MRTG_Schema_v0.7 for instance. A solution supporting export to a formal representation would be ideal though if it came to the choice, accessibility should take priority. Somewhere between Roger's lsid vocabularies and the MRTG schema page there must be a way to achieve this.
Is Semantic-mediawiki an option?
greg
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:30, Lynette.Woodburn@csiro.au wrote:
Back to basics ...
Anyone new to biodiversity informatics (in general) and TDWG (in particular) might be expected, as a first step, to seek a broad understanding of the scope of the knowledge domain which is of interest to the community they've just joined. Next, they're likely to want to gain an understanding of each of the main concepts and to discover how those concepts relate to one other. Delving yet deeper, curiosity will lead them to seek details about features used by the community to characterise each of those main concepts. So, gradually, it is anticipated that newcomers will gain an understanding of the meaning associated by their fellow community members with elements (concepts, features, relationships) within the knowledge domain. (Those elements are, after all, the chief subjects of discourse amongst community members.)
This fantastic voyage of discovery, these first steps into Aladdin's Cave, ought to be made easy for any newcomer. Instead, TDWG presents a dizzying array of perspectives on disparate subsets of elements within the knowledge domain, often with only cryptic, tenuous links binding them together. 'Horses-for-courses'-drivers clearly exist for these subsets, but where is the common community understanding of where each element fits into the broader, shared knowledge domain which is TDWG's scope?
I fully support any initiative which more effectively leads newcomers (and not-so-newcomers) to that place: that place where I would hope to find, in plain expressions devoid of techno-speak, a description of each real world element (concept, feature, relationship), together with a simple representation (a label?) by which the TDWG community prefers each to be referred; that place which evolves, but endures, independently of technological fashions and particular implementations; that place I can visit to paint a picture in my mind's eye of TDWG's own Aladdin's Cave.
Lynette Woodburn
Atlas of Living Australia
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
--
australian centre for plant bIodiversity research<------------------+ national greg whitBread voice: +61 2 62509 482 botanic Integrated Botanical Information System fax: +61 2 62509 599 gardens S........ I.T. happens.. ghw@anbg.gov.au +----------------------------------------->GPO Box 1777 Canberra 2601
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag _______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag