[tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore and DublinCore usageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
John R. WIECZOREK
tuco at berkeley.edu
Sun Oct 25 16:48:17 CET 2009
Can you explain the difference between your new term dwc:subtype and
the term dwc:basisOfRecord most recently proposed in this thread?
JOHN R. WIECZOREK wrote (24 Oct 2009 11:29AM):
"basisOfRecord will be used in Darwin Core as it is now,
without a formal type vocabulary. The recommended controlled
vocabulary will continue to be managed outside of the standard as
supplementary documentation, as was ratified already. The current
recommendations are given at
The values on this list can be used or not, changed or not, or added
to without affecting the Darwin Core standard. When I mentioned "some
of the terms would go to dcterms:type" in my net solution, above, I
was thinking that it would be redundant to keep "StillImage",
"MovingImage", and "Sound" on the list of controlled vocabulary for
basisOfRecord, as they are already in dcterms:type.
Communities would be free to add to the vocabulary to the level of
specificity they require. For example, MRTG could dispense with the
mrtg:subtype term and use dwc:basisOfRecord instead - adding
"Photograph", for example, to the controlled vocabulary list. This is
exactly the sort of thing basisOfRecord was always meant for."
I see no difference bewteen your dwc:subtype and the proposed
dwc:basisOfRecord except the name. The term basisOfRecord has been
used for this purpose in Darwin Core since 13 Jun 2003. I think
precedence should prevail.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com> wrote:
> With respect to the discussion of subclasses: the new recordType is on
> a different level than the resource types. We should not mix the
> information that something can be usefully interpreted as a Occurrence
> or Taxon concept with the type of resource that vouchers for this
> Thus, while I think recordType is a DarwinCore categorization of
> intent, not resource, and is fine, I still feel that the basisOfRecord
> vocabulary is a subtyping of resource types.
> I therefore believe that it would make life simpler for many consumers
> of DwC if DwC would adopt DublinCore type for its own purposes.
> Instead of having basisOfRecord =
> DarwinCore would first use the DublinCore vocabulary: dcterms:type=
> and then use dwc:subtype=
> for those subtypes of dcterms:type that DarwinCore cares about to
> specify further. This would allow consumers to directly map DwC
> records into their DublinCore metadata, rather than analysing the
> implied hierarchy and mapping in the flattened basisOfRecord.
More information about the tdwg-content