Hi Joel,
I thought I should let you know that I have been working on a paper with some people from the EoL on this very subject.
In fact the whole goal of the TaxonConcept/GeoSpecies project is setup examples and work these issues out.
It is not clear to me if this new group will be any different from the previous group where some mysterious entity decided what suggestions were to accepted and who would get attribution for that suggestion.
If this new group operates like the old group then it is not in my best interest or many others to participate.
What I would like to avoid are the experiences I had implementing features and making changes which later the person who requested the modification "changes their mind".
If you go back to the reasoning as to why part of TaxonConcept were done in the way that they were you will see it was in part to allow it to be portable and able to be taked up by some other group.
In a sense, an early version of a semantic web version of the Darwin Core already exists in TaxonConcept.
So what is the reasoning behind this new group that is different from the reasoning I used when I proposed such a group earlier on multiple occasions?
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote:
Greetings everyone,
After some back and forth amongst Steve Baskauf, myself, Greg Whitbread, and the executive, we've decided to move forward with an RDF/OWL task group, convened under the TAG. Our task will be to deliver a document comprising i. use cases and competency questions; ii. well documented examples of addressing those use cases via rdf and sparql; and iii. discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the approaches illustrated by the examples.
Our draft charter is at http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/CharterOfTG and we welcome comments, suggestions, and better ideas. One area where we're still open is the question of whether or not our deliverable should be an official Best Current Practice document [1]. The charter reflects our current feeling that it should not. After we deliver our "book of use cases and examples", options would include being re-chartered by the TAG to produce a best practices document, spinning off as a "Semantic Web Interest Group", or disbanding (either in triumph or despair).
When we were planning to convene as an Interest Group, several of you accepted our invitation to serve as core members, and we hope that convening as a Task Group does not change your willingness to do so. If you would like to be a core member of the group, and we haven't yet contacted you, there's a good chance that we will. But don't wait! Feel free to volunteer for core membership. (And recall that you don't have to be a "core member to" contribute.)
In regards timeline, I'd like to incorporate any feedback we receive, and submit the charter to the executive at the end of this week, in hopes of being chartered by New Orleans.
Many thanks! Joel.
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag