[tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore and DublinCore usageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord

[John R. WIECZOREK]

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
http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/RecordLevelTerms#basisOfRecord.
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
> information.
>
> 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 =
>  PreservedSpecimen
>  FossilSpecimen
>  LivingSpecimen
>  HumanObservation
>  MachineObservation
>  StillImage
>  MovingImage
>  Sound
>  NomenclaturalChecklist
>
> DarwinCore would first use the DublinCore vocabulary: dcterms:type=
>  StillImage
>  MovingImage
>  Sound
>  Event
>  Text
>
> and then use dwc:subtype=
>  PreservedSpecimen
>  FossilSpecimen
>  LivingSpecimen
>  HumanObservation
>  MachineObservation
>  NomenclaturalChecklist
>
> 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.
>
> Gregor
>