Kevin,
I agree with you and Stan that the
ontology is useful to all schemas. It seems to me that a “TDWG Ontology”
is a totally new and different kind of thing than all the data exchange
standards of the prior 10 years – DwC, SDD, TCS, etc. But, it is a
very useful and important new kind of thing that should be part of the TDWG standards
architecture. It challenges prior thinking about the nature of TDWG standards to
grasp what standardizing on an ontology means. But, I think it’s
what is needed.
If TDWG standardized on one Ontology, then
the vocabulary of all data exchange could be standardized on it. Then all
TDWG standards could be revised over time to comply to that vocabulary
standard, including DwC.
Stan said: “ I'd like to hear the rationale for
combining taxonomic name/concept with organism occurrence.” An occurrence record generally has an
organism’s name associated with it in the real world. It is necessary and inevitable that
vocabulary about organism names will be used in an occurrence data exchange schema
like DwC. We have been stymied with this idea for years. A standard Ontology/vocabulary
for the elements of name information needed to be associated with an
occurrence, or a description, or a taxon concept would go a long way toward
solving this duality. The “standard vocabulary” would not be standardized
within DwC but it would be used in DwC.
Of course there is the problem of the
hundreds of installations of DiGIR that use DwC “classic” and are
no doubt not going to change for a long time. I think they just have to
be accepted and worked around going forward. It’s impractical to
think of anything else. But, the past should not roadblock the future and
we need to get moving toward that future.
Stan thinks that the Ontology is not
appropriate for TDWG ratification. Why not? Change has to start
somewhere. Yes, other standards would probably be in conflict if the Ontology
were ratified, but I think we want to ultimately have consistency across all
the standards and that means there has to be change going forward. I
think a ratified TDWG Ontology would provide the foundation upon which to start
building those changes.
Chuck
From:
tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009
2:53 AM
To: Blum, Stan; Technical Architecture
Group mailinglist; exec@tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag]
I see the ontology as a model of ALL
(hopefully, eventually all) the data in our domain of biodiversity
informatics.
I would love to see it as a standard (at the least it might
give it a bit more clout).
I agree that the ontology is useful to tie other TDWG
schemas together, using it as a core/master model. I would be happy to
see it used for ALL tasks within TDWG, but I understand the usefulnes of
the more specific schemas/standards - horses for courses.
If I understand Stan here, I agree with him about the
dubious use of DwC for representing Taxon Concepts/Names. As far as I
know, it was really intended as a transfer standard for observation records??
It contains very limited taxon information! It really is not a overly
difficult job to use a more suitable schema/ontology. I think the
popularity of Darwin Core is due to its simplicity - and I wonder if what Roger
is proposing will help with this - ie an XML implementation of the ontology as
well as an RDF version. This will allow people to create very simple XML
documents with reasonably simple/flat data, eg an xml document of
TaxonName entities, with perhaps 6 or 7 or so key fields - even simpler than
DwC. :-)
Kevin
From:
tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
Blum, Stan [sblum@calacademy.org]
Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2009 6:12
a.m.
To: Technical Architecture Group
mailing list; exec@tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag]
From:
tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of John R. WIECZOREK
Sent: Fri 2009-04-24 8:58 AM
To: Roger Hyam
Cc: Technical Architecture Group
mailing list
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag]
Anything I should do on the DwC side in
anticipation of harmony?
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#theterms
===========================================================
John,
At some point, all or (most) of the
DarwinCore terms need to be added to the TDWG ontology.
But having said that, I also need to say that I'm
uncomfortable with:
1) The current state of the TDWG ontology (primarily the
naming conventions; lets just use terms names), and our understanding of the
role it plays in TDWG and how it will be managed (entry of terms, integration
of terms into the conceptual [is-a / has-a] relationships to other terms); and
2) the fact that the new DarwinCore straddles or overlaps
the roles of an ontology and an application schema.
I understood the past TAG roadmaps to indicate that we were
adopting an approach in which the TDWG Ontology would be a repository for data
concepts that are present in (or implied by) TDWG standards; and that real data
transmission would be accomplished with application schemas. The ontology
itself would not be a standard, but would be a tool that helps integrate
standards. I thought our standards would be created to function as
application schemas or components of application schemas (as in the DwC and its
extensions). I am now pretty confused. I'd like to hear the
rationale for combining taxonomic name/concept with organism occurrence.
I haven't gone over all the existing docs, so apologies if I've missed
that, but I think it's confusing that a (new) DarwinCore record could be
either a taxonomic name or an organism occurrence, or maybe something
else. Maybe I'm too attached to object orientation and just don't GET the
semantic web, but it feels to me like we are stepping into squishy ground.
Also, I the the DCMI maintenance procedures are also more
appropriately applied to the ontology than a TDWG standard. The existing
process for ratifying TDWG standards and the procedure in the DwC seem to be
pretty explicitly in conflict; one can change the other cannot (without
becoming another thing).
Is anyone else having these same trepidations? I don't
think I've been as much of a Rip Van Winkle as Jim Croft, but I clearly missed
some important shifts.
-Stan
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