[tdwg-content] NCD and DwC

renato at cria.org.br renato at cria.org.br
Tue Aug 18 01:04:59 CEST 2009

I also agree with these ideas. Actually I also wouldn't mind if both
standards use the TDWG Ontology namespace. I just think it's strange to
see the standards following different approaches with some degree of

Best Wishes,

> Hi Wouter and Neil (and others),
> I hope both of you are well. I know this may be a busy time (or,
> better, vacation time), but I hope that you have had a chance to
> consider recent discussions on tdwg-content about the relationships
> between DwC, NCD and the TDWG Ontology. In addition to those public
> discussions, I'm adding a few questions and comments I have had during
> the progression of the Darwin Core Review. I'm cc'ing those having a
> clear vested interest in resolution on both sides. I would urge you to
> look at the relevant tdwg-content commentary as well as my concerns
> from the messages below so that we can hopefully quickly come to a
> consensus on joint plan. I say quickly because I am eager that DwC
> review shouldn't undergo further unnecessary delays.
> In case it's a bit much to go through all of the "literature" relevant
> to the proposal I'm making, and in hopes of facilitating quick
> solutions, I'll summarize.
> 1) Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
> antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific
> example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
> 2) NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
> unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency seems
> to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the ontology is
> revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the reigns
> and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the
> Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain.
> Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
> 3) Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
> more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for
> object collections.
> With these commitments, DwC could safely move forward reusing NCD
> terms. Without the last two, DwC will have to redefine terms such as
> collectionID.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list