[tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore andDublinCoreusageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord

[John R. WIECZOREK]

I can easily imagine similar conversations occurring every time
someone wants to share some new kind of information with Darwin Core.
It is a perfect example to illustrate the convenience of having a
controlled vocabulary that can respond to change without affecting the
published standard.

The recommended vocabulary is given at
http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms#basisOfRecord,
which is type 2 documentation in TDWG Standards nomenclature. If we
wanted to add a new term to that list, we could do so without invoking
a standards process. If we wanted to modify any of the circular
definitions already there, or add any missing ones, we could without
invoking a standards process. The alternative, defining type
vocabularies that machines can use to understand the intricacies of
our distinctions, would not be so easy to change, but would admittedly
offer much more stability as its reward.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>
> So....how does one represent a record that is both a NomenclaturalAct *and*
> a TaxonomicAct at the same time (as I said, virtually all of the former also
> constitute the latter)?  Perhaps this is the solution that I've been looking
> for a while now -- that is, the basisOfRecord in this case is not really the
> "basis of the record" (I would describe the basis of the record as a
> TaxonNameUsage); but rather represents something more like "basis of
> representation".  That is, if a single TaxonNameUsage instance both carries
> a NomenclaturalAct and represent a TaxonomicAct, then the basisOfRecord
> could distinguish which of the two "things" that the specific record is
> intended to represent.  If basisOfRecord=NomenclaturalAct, then metadata
> elements would include all the nomenclatural bits associated with the record
> (e.g., various Code-governed events, etc.).  If basisOfRecord=TaxonomicAct,
> then the metadata elements would include things like classification,
> synonymy, included non-name-bearing specimens, etc.  In other words, the
> "thing" is the same in both cases (i.e., a TaxonNameUsage instance), but the
> difference would be which aspect of that thing the record is intended to
> represent.
>
> I suspect strongly that the preceding paragraph makes almost no sense
> whatsoever to anyone other than me (and I'm not even sure I understand it).
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Gregor Hagedorn
>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:44 PM
>> To: Blum, Stan
>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Vishwas Chavan (GBIF); Steve Baskauf
>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore
>> andDublinCoreusageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
>>
>> > I can't remember where, maybe in one of Rich's examples, I
>> thought I saw the basisOfRecord for a taxonName designated
>> as: "NomenclaturalAct".  I thought that was both correct and
>> precise.  Similarly, I think the basis of a taxon record
>> should be a "TaxonomicAct", i.e., a published description or
>> reclassification.
>>
>> I would favor it, because keeping recordClass versus resource
>> type better separated. "NomenclaturalAct",  "TaxonomicAct"
>> would be dcterms:type =event, for unpublished acts or
>> dcterms:type=text for published acts. In fact in this case,
>> the dcterms:type would no longer be redundant.
>>
>> Gregor
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>