[tdwg-content] Darwin Core Collection-related terms

Tim Robertson trobertson at gbif.org
Fri Jul 24 10:12:46 CEST 2009

Hi John, Renato

Thinking aloud, some possible options I see might be:

a) - omit it from the DwC terms altogether
b) - reuse the existing URI if the NCD term domain was derestricted
c) - keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS
d) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and add some kind of "is  
equivalent of" to the NCD acronymOrCoden
e) - ? keep a duplicate term in the DwC NS and have NCD acronymOrCoden  
do some "refinement" of dwc:collectionCode

My preference is for c) (or if possible e) for clear boundaries of dwc  
and also maintainability reasons.

To me, DwC fits nicely as a set of commonly used terms which are  
unrestricted to domain classes, and extend the terms offered by the  
DublinCore Metadata Terms.  Using these terms we can assemble models/ 
schemas etc.  To say DwC now also includes terms from other namespaces  
(which are currently restricted to domains), I think might become more  
difficult to grasp and maintain.    I also wonder if going down the  
route of b) or d) for one term could open the floodgates for a lot of  
other terms (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus -> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#genusPart) 
  and effectively move towards being an "index of data and object  
properties in the TDWG ontology".

Just some thoughts,


On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:20 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:

> I have taken the content of the Darwin Core Issues 32 and 33 to post
> here as they both require discussion before an unambiguous
> recommendation can be made.
>> From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=32
> Reported by ren... at cria.org.br
> Term Name: collectionID
> Recommendation: Reuse the term which is already defined in NCD (on the
> other hand, the NCD term defined in the corresponding RDF file should
> probably not be restricted to a specific domain).
> Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
> Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco
> This is indeed intended to be the same term. Can you provide the URI
> to the term in
> NCD?
> Status: Accepted
> Labels: Milestone-Release1.0 Priority-Critical
> Comment 2 by ren... at cria.org.br
> Currently the URI is:
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#collectionId
> But I think that relationship terms like this one should probably not
> be bound to a
> domain since they can be used by objects from many different classes.
> I'm not sure if
> it's possible to change NCD and if the NCD creators would agree with
> this change.
> Perhaps a better URI for this term would be:
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionId
> Comment 3 by gtuco.btuco, Today (1 minute ago)
> Since this issue no longer has a single defensible concrete solution I
> think it should
> be moved to the discussion list tdwg-content until one can be
> proposed. I'll copy the
> whole issue thread there.
> -----
>> From http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=33
> Reported by ren... at cria.org.br
> Term Name: collectionCode
> Recommendation: Reuse existing term from NCD, but I would probably  
> also
> suggest to change the NCD term from
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Collection#acronymOrCoden to
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/collectionCode (without a domain).  
> It would
> be nice to know Markus' or Roger's opinion about this, since they
> participated in the NCD group.
> Submitter: Renato De Giovanni
> Comment 1 by gtuco.btuco
> Also moving this issue to tdwg-content for discussion.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list