TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
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
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
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
a very brief reply - a project with a web based RDF Vocabulary editor is Neologism which sits on top of a drupal 5 instance - take a look at: http://neologism.deri.ie/ with a demo at: http://neologism.deri.ie/demo/ They have a fairly decent visualisation system and it's all web based. Just in case you're looking. Cheers, Kehan
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Lee Belbin leebel@netspace.net.au wrote:
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
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
OK. I'll put the elephant back in the room. But first I'll go Chuck one further: once the major natural history museums and herbaria are taken out of the discussion, the biodiversity data holding community is made up of people who don't want to hear about anything except Excel(tm) spreadsheets, and well they shouldn't.
Elephant wise, there is a case to be made that it is not standards bodies, but rather funded, mandated organizations like GBIF whose job is development of tools and training in their use, even when assistance of the standards-making participants is needed in the technical implementation of the tools. GBIF was pretty successful in that regard with their DiGIR provider, and is well on their way to another success with the Integrated Publishing Toolkit.
Usually, standards bodies are made up of people who contribute because they \are/ tool builders and want to make sure their tools have the required level of interoperability with whatever other tools they perceive interoperability is in their users' interests.
The global automotive industry is a good model (but so is the OpenGeospactial Consortium [note "Consortium" in their name]. ) . With no real data, I'll wager that an insignificant fraction of private owners of automobiles have no clue what is the appropriate motor oil to use in their car, much less how to understand how to choose a motor oil, or understand such things as the relation between SAE10W30 designated motor oil and something corresponding to it in an EU standard. In fact, what most people want is simply a light to come on in their car when it is time to take the car to someone who knows what is the appropriate thing to do to make that light go out and keep the car safe and valuable. Using a "change oil" indicator is an easy thing to learn. Designing cars with useful indicator lights is not. Even selling or servicing cars is not an easy thing to learn, and maybe those are the analogy of the community in pain being put forth in these threads. If developing, deploying, and maintaining biodiversity information systems were not technically demanding enterprises, Mobot could fire its technical staff and hire a bunch of high school students who have had a course in Java and are masters of Twitter and Facebook. There are a lot of those for hire.
Bob Morris
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.orgwrote:
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
OK. Because it is Friday afternoon and Bob has upped the ante, I will pull a chair up to this game and go all-in.
It's not the red 'Check Engine' light that drivers want either. What people want with a car, obviously, is the ability to go from A to B, quickly and comfortably, and WITHOUT THINKING. It's not features people want, it's benefits. http://www.clickz.com/840121
The other point Bob makes about the key role of software tools in the promulgation and realization (and payoff!) of standards (i.e. benefits) is exactly right. TDWG has a glorious history of which I am proud to be an ancient part, of clever intellectual conceptualizations with no clear, short-term benefits or features for the community that feeds it.
Candidly, that's why we feel excited about going viral with Specify as a platform to bring standards-enabled benefits to the collections community as capabilities encoded in actual software that does occasionally mundane but useful things.
By the way, even though Kansas is reputed to be the source of the 1918 flu pandemic, it is only coincidence that Specify coming out of Kansas has gone viral--as we ramp up to H1N1.
So, here's to TDWG integrating better to labs everywhere making software for research users. That's a winning strategy for a TDWGian future. And let's sell benefits, not features.
Jim Beach
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
________________________________
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Bob Morris Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:27 PM To: Chuck Miller Cc: Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer'sperspective[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] OK. I'll put the elephant back in the room. But first I'll go Chuck one further: once the major natural history museums and herbaria are taken out of the discussion, the biodiversity data holding community is made up of people who don't want to hear about anything except Excel(tm) spreadsheets, and well they shouldn't. Elephant wise, there is a case to be made that it is not standards bodies, but rather funded, mandated organizations like GBIF whose job is development of tools and training in their use, even when assistance of the standards-making participants is needed in the technical implementation of the tools. GBIF was pretty successful in that regard with their DiGIR provider, and is well on their way to another success with the Integrated Publishing Toolkit. Usually, standards bodies are made up of people who contribute because they \are/ tool builders and want to make sure their tools have the required level of interoperability with whatever other tools they perceive interoperability is in their users' interests. The global automotive industry is a good model (but so is the OpenGeospactial Consortium [note "Consortium" in their name]. ) . With no real data, I'll wager that an insignificant fraction of private owners of automobiles have no clue what is the appropriate motor oil to use in their car, much less how to understand how to choose a motor oil, or understand such things as the relation between SAE10W30 designated motor oil and something corresponding to it in an EU standard. In fact, what most people want is simply a light to come on in their car when it is time to take the car to someone who knows what is the appropriate thing to do to make that light go out and keep the car safe and valuable. Using a "change oil" indicator is an easy thing to learn. Designing cars with useful indicator lights is not. Even selling or servicing cars is not an easy thing to learn, and maybe those are the analogy of the community in pain being put forth in these threads. If developing, deploying, and maintaining biodiversity information systems were not technically demanding enterprises, Mobot could fire its technical staff and hire a bunch of high school students who have had a course in Java and are masters of Twitter and Facebook. There are a lot of those for hire. Bob Morris On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
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
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466
Bob,
Well, Lynette is from Atlas of Living Australia and Rupert Wilson is from Royal Horticultural Society - neither natural history museum nor herbarium. But, even so, the "non-major" museums, zoos, aquaria, gardens, arboreta and herbaria (whoever they might be) are not a small bunch and I have to presume are not just limited to Excel spreadsheets, but there certainly are some no doubt.
We simply have to recognize the existence of these thousands of nonacademic folks with biodiversity data systems out there. And frankly, the high school Java programmer reference might not be that far off in some corners of the world's data sources. Excel, maybe too. It's just a reality that TDWG needs to accept and support somehow. And, again, I'm not saying we don't need the semantic inferencing tools and standards, which we do. And I still think there should be a standard TDWG Ontology, hard as that may be to do.
I just think we need to hedge the TDWG standards some for the sake of the Lynettes and Ruperts of the world. If IPT were the universal integrator, adaptable to all sources and receivers, then I suppose that would make it like the "oil light" and end of discussion.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:27 PM To: Chuck Miller Cc: Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
OK. I'll put the elephant back in the room. But first I'll go Chuck one further: once the major natural history museums and herbaria are taken out of the discussion, the biodiversity data holding community is made up of people who don't want to hear about anything except Excel(tm) spreadsheets, and well they shouldn't.
Elephant wise, there is a case to be made that it is not standards bodies, but rather funded, mandated organizations like GBIF whose job is development of tools and training in their use, even when assistance of the standards-making participants is needed in the technical implementation of the tools. GBIF was pretty successful in that regard with their DiGIR provider, and is well on their way to another success with the Integrated Publishing Toolkit.
Usually, standards bodies are made up of people who contribute because they \are/ tool builders and want to make sure their tools have the required level of interoperability with whatever other tools they perceive interoperability is in their users' interests.
The global automotive industry is a good model (but so is the OpenGeospactial Consortium [note "Consortium" in their name]. ) . With no real data, I'll wager that an insignificant fraction of private owners of automobiles have no clue what is the appropriate motor oil to use in their car, much less how to understand how to choose a motor oil, or understand such things as the relation between SAE10W30 designated motor oil and something corresponding to it in an EU standard. In fact, what most people want is simply a light to come on in their car when it is time to take the car to someone who knows what is the appropriate thing to do to make that light go out and keep the car safe and valuable. Using a "change oil" indicator is an easy thing to learn. Designing cars with useful indicator lights is not. Even selling or servicing cars is not an easy thing to learn, and maybe those are the analogy of the community in pain being put forth in these threads. If developing, deploying, and maintaining biodiversity information systems were not technically demanding enterprises, Mobot could fire its technical staff and hire a bunch of high school students who have had a course in Java and are masters of Twitter and Facebook. There are a lot of those for hire.
Bob Morris
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
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
In theory it should be possible for providers to use a simple excel-like format which GBIF harvests, processes and exposes in one ormore of the more complicated formats. The processed version could be made available in different formats that correspond to different ontologies. One could be an OWL DL based structure, another a simpler RDF structure and the third as standard xml.
The downside is that this simpler format might need to have far fewer fields.
Some of these could be repopulated by the harvester service.
For instance, if you know the state / province, the harvester should be able to populate the continent.
- Pete
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.orgwrote:
Bob,
Well, Lynette is from Atlas of Living Australia and Rupert Wilson is from Royal Horticultural Society – neither natural history museum nor herbarium. But, even so, the “non-major” museums, zoos, aquaria, gardens, arboreta and herbaria (whoever they might be) are not a small bunch and I have to presume are not just limited to Excel spreadsheets, but there certainly are some no doubt.
We simply have to recognize the existence of these thousands of nonacademic folks with biodiversity data systems out there. And frankly, the high school Java programmer reference might not be that far off in some corners of the world’s data sources. Excel, maybe too. It’s just a reality that TDWG needs to accept and support somehow. And, again, I’m not saying we don’t need the semantic inferencing tools and standards, which we do. And I still think there should be a standard TDWG Ontology, hard as that may be to do.
I just think we need to hedge the TDWG standards some for the sake of the Lynettes and Ruperts of the world. If IPT were the universal integrator, adaptable to all sources and receivers, then I suppose that would make it like the “oil light” and end of discussion.
Chuck
*From:* Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2009 1:27 PM *To:* Chuck Miller *Cc:* Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org
*Subject:* Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer'sperspective [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
OK. I'll put the elephant back in the room. But first I'll go Chuck one further: once the major natural history museums and herbaria are taken out of the discussion, the biodiversity data holding community is made up of people who don't want to hear about anything except Excel(tm) spreadsheets, and well they shouldn't.
Elephant wise, there is a case to be made that it is not standards bodies, but rather funded, mandated organizations like GBIF whose job is development of tools and training in their use, even when assistance of the standards-making participants is needed in the technical implementation of the tools. GBIF was pretty successful in that regard with their DiGIR provider, and is well on their way to another success with the Integrated Publishing Toolkit.
Usually, standards bodies are made up of people who contribute because they \are/ tool builders and want to make sure their tools have the required level of interoperability with whatever other tools they perceive interoperability is in their users' interests.
The global automotive industry is a good model (but so is the OpenGeospactial Consortium [note "Consortium" in their name]. ) . With no real data, I'll wager that an insignificant fraction of private owners of automobiles have no clue what is the appropriate motor oil to use in their car, much less how to understand how to choose a motor oil, or understand such things as the relation between SAE10W30 designated motor oil and something corresponding to it in an EU standard. In fact, what most people want is simply a light to come on in their car when it is time to take the car to someone who knows what is the appropriate thing to do to make that light go out and keep the car safe and valuable. Using a "change oil" indicator is an easy thing to learn. Designing cars with useful indicator lights is not. Even selling or servicing cars is not an easy thing to learn, and maybe those are the analogy of the community in pain being put forth in these threads. If developing, deploying, and maintaining biodiversity information systems were not technically demanding enterprises, Mobot could fire its technical staff and hire a bunch of high school students who have had a course in Java and are masters of Twitter and Facebook. There are a lot of those for hire.
Bob Morris
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
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
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
On May 16, 2009, at 06:26 , Bob Morris wrote: ...
Elephant wise, there is a case to be made that it is not standards bodies, but rather funded, mandated organizations like GBIF whose job is development of tools and training in their use, even when assistance of the standards-making participants is needed in the technical implementation of the tools. GBIF was pretty successful in that regard with their DiGIR provider, and is well on their way to another success with the Integrated Publishing Toolkit.
I'm sure Bob did not mean to imply that DiGIR was developed by GBIF, or even has an ownership role. The bulk of development work on that protocol was funded by NSF through projects such as MaNIS, Herpnet, Fishnet along with (significant) support from the University of Kansas and many other non-funded contributors. DiGIR was later utilized by GBIF and promoted through their workshops.
The important point though is that, in my opinion, groups such as TDWG provide a (hopefully unbiased) representation of the overall community requirements and direction. TDWG provides a forum where standards and tools to support biodiversity informatics can be identified and discussed (sometimes in perpetuity). At the other extreme, research projects (such as those funded by NSF) generally engage in exploration of novel concepts and collaboration between different groups for the advancement of the science (with some consideration of the overall community goals as identified by community representative groups such as TDWG). Then somewhere in the middle is GBIF. The role of GBIF would ideally not be in the development of new tools or exploring new techniques (since GBIF has rather limited funding), but rather in taking the best of what comes out of the many research projects (refining the outcomes where necessary) and engaging in education and outreach to ensure long term support of the community infrastructure required for biodiversity informatics as outlined by TDWG. So, in a nutshell, TDWG represents the biodiversity informatics community, research projects explore ways to advance the science, and GBIF (could, should?) provide a role focussing on the long term integration and sustainability of the infrastructure and education on its use that is necessary for the science.
Dave V.
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
</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
</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/ http://www.tdwg.org/getting-started/
A Getting Started wiki http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/Starting/WebHome 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
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
OK Jim, I'll see if I can inject some reality over the next few days.
Lee
Lee Belbin TDWG Secretariat
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2009 5:15 PM To: Piers Higgs Cc: Lee Belbin; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ...anewcomer'sperspective
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
Hi again TAG-ers,
After checking with Lee, I'd lke to post details of a position of Senior Developer we've recently advertised on Seek -
http://www.seek.com.au/users/apply/index.ascx?Sequence=53&PageNumber=1&a...
It's a position that requires considerable development skill & experience, and of course bioinformatics knowledge is a big plus given the projects we're working on.
Please pass this on to anyone you think might be interested, and feel free to follow up with me directly if you have any queries.
Piers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piers Higgs
Gaia Resources
Environmental Technology Consultants
p +61 8 92277309
m +61 0411754006
e piers@gaiaresources.com.au
w www.gaiaresources.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Lee, An introduction to TDWG section would be a great start for the newcomers. I agree it's something we should have done a while back.
Chuck
________________________________
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Lee Belbin Sent: Sat 5/16/2009 11:23 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
Hi Lynette,
Thanks for your comments ( and Greg and Gregor).
I think you raise an interesting point here that needs cleared up. It is something we have got wrong in the past.
Some people think the TDWG ontology should be a model of the biodiversity domain (particularly taxonomy) as it exists today, incorporating actual working practices and what is in the literature. "Just represent what we do today"
This is *NOT* what I am interested in building. A good analogy is that of a map. What I am interested in doing is building the a map for the major highways with enough detail in it to enable *machines* (not humans) to do sensible stuff with the data so as to facilitates our understanding of biodiversity. There should only be enough detail in the map to make data exchange work.
It may be worthwhile building a big, detailed ontology/map of the biodiversity domain for human consumption and this should inform the machine readable map but I think there is a big danger of conflating (great word) the two. This is what we have done in the past.
Anyone want to volunteer to run a wiki that describes the biodiversity informatics domain? This would be a great resource.
All the best,
Roger
For two reasons:
1) It gets us precisely nowhere.
On 14 May 2009, at 04:30, 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
------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Roger@BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org http://www.BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org ------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK Tel: +44 131 552 7171 ext 3015 Fax: +44 131 248 2901 http://www.rbge.org.uk/ -------------------------------------------------------------
No conflating here Roger. If we want this small scale map to be useful, i.e. used within the domain at any scale, it really has to be useable. This generally means drafting from domain requirements. Just the must haves perhaps but informed at least by a common understanding of what constitutes a major road. Ironically we find that enough detail for data exchange usually requires the larger scale map. Smaller scales being more suited to point to point communications.
I don't really care which way we go on this. It makes sense initially to work back from your existing lsid ontologies which are already being implemented (here at least) and use the more accessible interface to gather feedback and provide a platform for evolution within a broader TDWG context. This is not what we have done in the past.
greg
This is *NOT* what I am interested in building. A good analogy is that of a map. What I am interested in doing is building the a map for the major highways with enough detail in it to enable *machines* (not humans) to do sensible stuff with the data so as to facilitates our understanding of biodiversity. There should only be enough detail in the map to make data exchange work. It may be worthwhile building a big, detailed ontology/map of the biodiversity domain for human consumption and this should inform the machine readable map but I think there is a big danger of conflating (great word) the two. This is what we have done in the past. Anyone want to volunteer to run a wiki that describes the biodiversity informatics domain? This would be a great resource. All the best, Roger
For two reasons:
- It gets us precisely nowhere.
On 14 May 2009, at 04:30, 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
Roger Hyam Roger@BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org http://www.BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK Tel: +44 131 552 7171 ext 3015 Fax: +44 131 248 2901 http://www.rbge.org.uk/
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
You make a good point here Roger, but I definitely think there is benefit in having both approaches - ie a complete model of our domain that people can reuse and base their specific use cases on, and the higher level architecture (the "map") for building bridges etc.
We are currently working on a "semantic" technologies project here at Landcare, and we are currently drawing up a (brief) high level ontology for our domain (ie biodiversity informatics in general, really). We are using SKOS to do this. I could put this on a wiki page as an example - when we have completed it - then we could build on it from there?? Did you have something like SKOS in mind (ie the domain topics are instances) or something more like an ontology of the domain (where the "topics" are classes themselves)?
Kevin
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2009 10:52 p.m. To: lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Cc: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
Hi Lynette,
Thanks for your comments ( and Greg and Gregor).
I think you raise an interesting point here that needs cleared up. It is something we have got wrong in the past.
Some people think the TDWG ontology should be a model of the biodiversity domain (particularly taxonomy) as it exists today, incorporating actual working practices and what is in the literature. "Just represent what we do today"
This is *NOT* what I am interested in building. A good analogy is that of a map. What I am interested in doing is building the a map for the major highways with enough detail in it to enable *machines* (not humans) to do sensible stuff with the data so as to facilitates our understanding of biodiversity. There should only be enough detail in the map to make data exchange work.
It may be worthwhile building a big, detailed ontology/map of the biodiversity domain for human consumption and this should inform the machine readable map but I think there is a big danger of conflating (great word) the two. This is what we have done in the past.
Anyone want to volunteer to run a wiki that describes the biodiversity informatics domain? This would be a great resource.
All the best,
Roger
For two reasons:
1) It gets us precisely nowhere.
On 14 May 2009, at 04:30, lynette.woodburn@csiro.aumailto: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.orgmailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Roger@BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.orgmailto:Roger@BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org http://www.BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.orghttp://www.BiodiversityCollectionsIndex.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK Tel: +44 131 552 7171 ext 3015 Fax: +44 131 248 2901 http://www.rbge.org.uk/ -------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________ 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
I think that the effort to organize information about species has been moving so slowly in part because of it's focus on names. Our goal is to organize information about species, names are just the handle that we use to tag a species.
The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for species concepts and then point the various names to that identifier.
I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that mention the *Puma concolor*, and *Felis concolor.* * * Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
It would make sense to mint global URI for that species concept and then tag all papers, images, observations to that species concept.
As these documents are being processed, more and more information will be tied to that identifier.
Identifiers for "good" species could be created quickly. New observations could start to be tagged with that identifier along with whatever name the recorder would like to use. e.g. Aedes/Ochlerotatus
These concepts could be mapped to the GNI data in the following way
http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3165624 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/505310 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10330292 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/6689244 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3169574 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10568463 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/12104361 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/1758834 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/11818218
I have not had much success getting this idea accepted in a number of these communities.
So I have a proposal. Let my group start making species concept identifiers. If this concept is adopted, I have succeeded in proving my point. If this concept fails, then I am wrong. Either way, we should have an answer by the end of the decade.
Respectfully,
- Pete
P.S. This is not about changing the system of binomial nomenclature, it is about tying data together so we can start to address the world's problems in a efficient manner. Binomial nomenclature stays. ;-)
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
In the real world we have collections of real (individual or groups of) organisms which we put in a container and label the container with a name for that species. Others can look in this container, examine the real objects and either agree that all the object belong to a single species concept or split the objects into two or more groups and assign different names to the new species concepts. The reverse can occur where two containers are merged and then the Codes give guidance of which of the two names is the correct one.
Creating identifiers for the species concepts solves nothing if we do not know how a concept is defined.
Paul
________________________________
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Peter DeVries Sent: Thu 14/05/2009 23:00 To: Kevin Richards Cc: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
I think that the effort to organize information about species has been moving so slowly in part because of it's focus on names. Our goal is to organize information about species, names are just the handle that we use to tag a species.
The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for species concepts and then point the various names to that identifier.
I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that mention the Puma concolor, and Felis concolor.
Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
It would make sense to mint global URI for that species concept and then tag all papers, images, observations to that species concept.
As these documents are being processed, more and more information will be tied to that identifier.
Identifiers for "good" species could be created quickly. New observations could start to be tagged with that identifier along with whatever name the recorder would like to use. e.g. Aedes/Ochlerotatus
These concepts could be mapped to the GNI data in the following way
http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3165624 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3165624 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/505310 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/505310 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10330292 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10330292 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/6689244 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/6689244 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3169574 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3169574 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10568463 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10568463 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/12104361 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/12104361 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/1758834 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/1758834 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p hasNameID http://globalnames.org/name_strings/11818218 http://globalnames.org/name_strings/11818218
I have not had much success getting this idea accepted in a number of these communities.
So I have a proposal. Let my group start making species concept identifiers. If this concept is adopted, I have succeeded in proving my point. If this concept fails, then I am wrong. Either way, we should have an answer by the end of the decade.
Respectfully,
- Pete
P.S. This is not about changing the system of binomial nomenclature, it is about tying data together so we can start to address the world's problems in a efficient manner. Binomial nomenclature stays. ;-) ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
**************************************************************************
Hi Paul, What you are proposing is actually different than the ICZN code isn't it?
Aren't people tying those cougars they write about to the type specimen? Not a collection of specimens?
The issue you are raising about species concepts also pertain to name based identifiers.
What do they mean when they use *Felis concolor*? Do they mean something different then *Puma concolor*?
For a large number of species people seem to "mean" the same thing when using different binomial names. They are either not aware of the name change or they disagree with the particular taxonomic hypothesis bound to a specific binomial name.
There are cases where the species concept itself is wrong and either needs to be split or combined with another. I think that these cases are handled more easily with a species concept identifier than an array of name-based identifiers.
It appears that most differences in nomenclature for "good" species are due to the former issue rather than the invalidity of the underlying species concept.
The issue of what is a species is still unresolved, but the system I am proposing allows one to link the names in literature and data to a common species concept.
It seems clear that *Felis concolor* and *Puma concolor* map to the same species concept and should be placed in the box with one label on it. This label would not need to change when that species is moved to a different genus.
Under the system you describe you would have to change the label on the box with every change in phylogeny, even if the box still contains the same individual members of a species.
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
In the real world we have collections of real (individual or groups of) organisms which we put in a container and label the container with a name for that species. Others can look in this container, examine the real objects and either agree that all the object belong to a single species concept or split the objects into two or more groups and assign different names to the new species concepts. The reverse can occur where two containers are merged and then the Codes give guidance of which of the two names is the correct one.
Creating identifiers for the species concepts solves nothing if we do not know how a concept is defined.
Paul
*From:* tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Peter DeVries *Sent:* Thu 14/05/2009 23:00 *To:* Kevin Richards *Cc:* tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
I think that the effort to organize information about species has been moving so slowly in part because of it's focus on names. Our goal is to organize information about species, names are just the handle that we use to tag a species.
The efforts would go much more quickly if we create identifiers for species concepts and then point the various names to that identifier.
I did a check via Google Scholar for papers published this year that mention the *Puma concolor*, and *Felis concolor.*
Both of these names for the same species are still being used.
It would make sense to mint global URI for that species concept and then tag all papers, images, observations to that species concept.
As these documents are being processed, more and more information will be tied to that identifier.
Identifiers for "good" species could be created quickly. New observations could start to be tagged with that identifier along with whatever name the recorder would like to use. e.g. Aedes/Ochlerotatus
These concepts could be mapped to the GNI data in the following way
http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3165624 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/505310 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10330292 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/6689244 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/3169574 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/10568463 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/12104361 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/1758834 http://www.taxonconcept.org/spcs/v6n7p *hasNameID* http://globalnames.org/name_strings/11818218
I have not had much success getting this idea accepted in a number of these communities.
So I have a proposal. Let my group start making species concept identifiers. If this concept is adopted, I have succeeded in proving my point. If this concept fails, then I am wrong. Either way, we should have an answer by the end of the decade.
Respectfully,
- Pete
P.S. This is not about changing the system of binomial nomenclature, it is about tying data together so we can start to address the world's problems in a efficient manner. Binomial nomenclature stays. ;-)
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
That's a no brainer... her you go:
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
or to be abstract:
75 72 6e 3a 6c 73 69 64 3a 75 62 69 6f 2e 6f 72 67 3a 6e 61 6d 65 62 61 6e 6b 3a 32 35 39 33 39 34 37
yep... sure works for me... know *exactly* what you are talking about... :)
jim
_________________ Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
Ah yes Jim, your species is this ... isn't it?
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101010 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
But are we all sure it's the same species?
Paul
________________________________
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 15/05/2009 01:39 To: Paul Kirk Cc: Peter DeVries; Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
That's a no brainer... her you go:
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
or to be abstract:
75 72 6e 3a 6c 73 69 64 3a 75 62 69 6f 2e 6f 72 67 3a 6e 61 6d 65 62 61 6e 6b 3a 32 35 39 33 39 34 37
yep... sure works for me... know *exactly* what you are talking about... :)
jim
_________________ Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
**************************************************************************
I'm sure - I'd recognise those ones and zeros anywhere...
- Tony
________________________________ From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kirk Sent: Friday, 15 May 2009 3:37 PM To: Jim Croft Cc: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; Woodburn, Lynette (Entomology, Black Mountain) Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
Ah yes Jim, your species is this ... isn't it?
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101010 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
But are we all sure it's the same species?
Paul
________________________________ From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 15/05/2009 01:39 To: Paul Kirk Cc: Peter DeVries; Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
That's a no brainer... her you go:
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
or to be abstract:
75 72 6e 3a 6c 73 69 64 3a 75 62 69 6f 2e 6f 72 67 3a 6e 61 6d 65 62 61 6e 6b 3a 32 35 39 33 39 34 37
yep... sure works for me... know *exactly* what you are talking about... :)
jim
_________________ Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
**************************************************************************
triple stores are soooo pre swine flu. If you cant' do it with one bit it ain't worth doing....
jim
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Tony.Rees@csiro.au wrote:
I’m sure – I’d recognise those ones and zeros anywhere…
- Tony
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kirk Sent: Friday, 15 May 2009 3:37 PM To: Jim Croft Cc: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; Woodburn, Lynette (Entomology, Black Mountain) Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
Ah yes Jim, your species is this ... isn't it?
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101010 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
But are we all sure it's the same species?
Paul
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 15/05/2009 01:39 To: Paul Kirk Cc: Peter DeVries; Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
That's a no brainer... her you go:
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
or to be abstract:
75 72 6e 3a 6c 73 69 64 3a 75 62 69 6f 2e 6f 72 67 3a 6e 61 6d 65 62 61 6e 6b 3a 32 35 39 33 39 34 37
yep... sure works for me... know *exactly* what you are talking about... :)
jim
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
yeah, that's it, 01101000011101000111010001110000001110100010111100101111011100100110010001100110001011100110011101100101011011110111001101110000011001010110001101101001011001010111001100101110011011110111001001100111001011110110110001110011011010010110010000101111011100110111000001100101011000110110100101100101011100110110010001101001011100100010111101000001011001010110010001100101011100110101111101100001011001010110011101111001011100000111010001101001010111110110110001110011011010010110010000101110011100100110010001100110
everything you need is there... but some computer already knew that...
jim
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Ah yes Jim, your species is this ... isn't it?
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101010 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
But are we all sure it's the same species?
Paul ________________________________ From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 15/05/2009 01:39 To: Paul Kirk Cc: Peter DeVries; Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org; lynette.woodburn@csiro.au Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] TDWG ontology revisited ... a newcomer's perspective
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Paul Kirk p.kirk@cabi.org wrote:
Pete,
If you had a 'container' called species concept what would you put in it so that computers, let alone other people, knew what you meant?
That's a no brainer... her you go:
01110101 01110010 01101110 00111010 01101100 01110011 01101001 01100100 00111010 01110101 01100010 01101001 01101111 00101110 01101111 01110010 01100111 00111010 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101011 00111010 00110010 00110101 00111001 00110011 00111001 00110100 00110111
or to be abstract:
75 72 6e 3a 6c 73 69 64 3a 75 62 69 6f 2e 6f 72 67 3a 6e 61 6d 65 62 61 6e 6b 3a 32 35 39 33 39 34 37
yep... sure works for me... know *exactly* what you are talking about... :)
jim
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
participants (16)
-
Beach, James H -
Bob Morris -
Chuck Miller -
Dave Vieglais -
Greg Whitbread -
greg whitbread
-
Jim Croft -
Kehan Harman -
Kevin Richards -
Lee Belbin -
Lynette.Woodburn＠csiro.au -
Paul Kirk -
Peter DeVries -
Piers Higgs -
Roger Hyam -
Tony.Rees＠csiro.au