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

[John R. WIECZOREK]

The proposed solution is simpler than people seem to be thinking. From
my previous post...

Net solution:
1) keep dcterms:type
2) use DCType vocabulary to control dcterms:type (so, StillImage,
PhysicalObject, Event, etc.)
3) keep basisOfRecord
4) use our DwC-specific subtypes (PreservedSpecimen, FossilSpecimen,
HumanObservation, etc.) as the controlled vocabulary for basisOfRecord
without a formal type vocabulary (very close to how it is now, just
some of the terms would go to dcterms:type).
5) add a recordClass term
6) use the DwCType vocabulary to control the recordClass term instead
of the dcterms:type term.

Net solution more fully explained:
1) and 2). dcterms:type will be used in Darwin Core exactly as in the
Dublin Core, with exactly the same controlled vocabulary as in Dublin
Core ("Collection", "Dataset", "Event", "Image",
"InteractiveResource", "MovingImage", "PhysicalObject", "Service",
"Software", "Sound", "StillImage", or "Text").

3) and 4). 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.

5) and 6). Add dwc:recordClass and use the formal DwCType vocabulary
(Taxon, Occurrence, Location, Event) to control this term rather than
control dcterms:type.

One-liner summaries of actual changes to make:
1) Let dcterms:type comply 100% with Dublin Core
2) Create dwc:recordClass to do what was attempted incorrectly with
dcterms:type.


Use cases from Bob:
UC-Bob1
* http://bit.ly/AudubonOspreyDescription  an original Audubon
manuscript describing the Osprey in the  Audubon Osprey drawing

UC-Bob2
* http://bit.ly/AudubonOspreyPrint an original of the Audubon Osprey
print, for sale at a gallery, or as in a stable Collection

UC-Bob3
* http://bit.ly/AudubonOspreyDigitalImage  N.Y. Public Library Digital
Image of Audubon Osprey print.

UC-Bob4
* http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/324182767/  a cc licensed
picture on Flickr of an Osprey,  georeferenced to named location.

UC-Bob1, UC-Bob2, and UC-Bob3 are not a Darwin Core resources - they
can't be made into records of any of the DwCTypes (Taxon, Occurrence,
Location, Event). This doesn't mean that DwC terms couldn't be used to
describe these resource - you just can't make Darwin Core records out
of them.

UC-Bob4 can be made into a Darwin Core Occurrence record having:
dcterms:type = "StillImage"
dwc:basisOfRecord = "Photograph" or "DigitalStillImage" or
"DigitalPhotograph" or whatever vocabulary you decide.
dwc:recordClass = "Occurrence"

Use cases from Steve:
UC-Steve1
* In the example of a live plant image from
http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/oslo.htm I would
assign image record
DwC:recordClass = Occurrence
DwC:basisOfRecord = StillImage
dcterms:type = StillImage
mrtg:subtype = Photograph
[Note that DwC:basisOfRecord is not synonymous with mrtg:subtype as it
currently stands.  Would it have to be under John's proposal?]

UC-Steve2
* In the example of an image of an herbarium sheet shown at
http://www.morphbank.net/Show/?pop=Yes&id=142009 I would assign the
record for the herbarium sheet itself:
DwC:recordClass = Occurrence
DwC:basisOfRecord = PreservedSpecimen
dcterms:type = PhysicalObject

UC-Steve3
* and for the record of the specimen image:
DwC:recordClass = Occurrence
DwC:basisOfRecord = StillImage
dcterms:type = StillImage
mrtg:subtype = Photograph

For UC-Steve1, looking at the URL, I see nothing that suggests that
the resource at
http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/oslo.htm refers
to an Occurrence record, but I suppose it is no different from having
a specimen with no location information. Nevertheless, if the resource
was being described with DwC terms, I would assign:
dcterms:type = "StillImage"
dwc:basisOfRecord = "Photograph" or "DigitalStillImage" or
"DigitalPhotograph" or whatever vocabulary you decide.
dwc:recordClass = "Occurrence"

For UC-Steve2 the Alaska museum of the North should have an Occurrence
record for that specimen with:
dcterms:type = "PhysicalObject"
dwc:basisOfRecord = "PreservedSpecimen"
dwc:recordClass = "Occurrence"

The image would be a different resource that could be referred to by
the Occurrence record via dwc:associatedMedia or through an instance
of the dwc:ResourceRelationship class. The image resource could be
described by the terms:
dcterms:type = "StillImage"
dwc:basisOfRecord = "Photograph" or "DigitalStillImage" or
"DigitalPhotograph" or whatever vocabulary you decide.
dwc:recordClass = "Occurrence"

I hope that helps.

John

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>
> I've wrestled with similar issues; namely collections of images that span
> from obvious occurrence records to illustrative images of the sort that Bob
> shows, to diagrams of particular specimens, to abstract diagrams of no
> specimen in particular.
>
> My concern about Bob's CharacterIllustration BoR is that this is
> non-mutually exclusive to others.  For example, a StillImage in-situ could
> represent both a geographic occurrence and a representation of a particular
> morphological character.  How to represent such cases: two separate records?
>
> My gut feeling is that we need to separate records that represent an
> occurrence, from records that represent the evidence documenting the
> occurrence.  Very often we have undewater video of a fish in its habitat,
> then we collect the specimen, then we take a prepared specimen digital
> photograph.  I assume the appropriate way to represent this through DwC is
> via three separate occurrence records, each appropriately types, and each
> cross-referenced to each other.  But perhaps there should be only one
> occurrence record, with three cross-linked "Evidence" records of some sort.
>
> Too early in the morning for me to think this through thoroughly -- just
> throwing it out there.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Bob Morris
>> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:50 AM
>> To: tuco at berkeley.edu
>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Steve Baskauf; Vishwas Chavan (GBIF)
>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore and
>> DublinCore usageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
>>
>> It seems to me that there is an underlying issue that makes
>> some of the DwC typing mechanisms difficult to apply to
>> multimedia---at least in the breadth the MRTG means to
>> approach it--is that DwC is heavily slanted towards
>> documenting organisms as opposed to documenting descriptions.
>>  Gregor's (and my) favorite examples are pictures meant to
>> illustrate a character and its states. It's possible, but
>> likely pointless, to document a picture such as
>> http://bit.ly/pottedTomato as only, or even primarily,
>> something about the particular organism photographed.  The
>> photograph was (speculatively) taken to illustrate the
>> concept of compound leaf for use in the Morphster ontobrowser.
>> Even if its original purpose \were/ to document, say, an
>> Occurrence, MRTG attempts to provide assistance in
>> determining, without fetching the media,  a resource's
>> fitness-for-use for some use perhaps unknown or of no
>> interest to the originator of the image. To support this, a
>> third-party might be motivated to create  a MRTG or even a
>> DwC record as an annotation of the original resource record.
>> Such a new record must sometimes not be bound by any
>> semantics that tie it to that particular potted tomato plant,
>> or the time and place the picture was taken.
>>
>> This particular example might be addressed by adding, e.g.
>> CharacterIllustration, to the DwC-specific basis of record vocabulary.
>> That might be a good idea, but it does not fully address my
>> worry, which is how scalable is DwC to concerns wider than
>> documenting occurrences. Even if such scalability is to be
>> principally the addition of recordClass terms for specific
>> uses, it would be good if one can examine whether such
>> extensions have unintended consequences.
>>
>> Unbridled class extension has a dark side: it's easy to
>> introduce inconsistencies and circularities.
>>
>> Bob Morris
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, John R. WIECZOREK
>> <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> > Gregor,
>> >
>> > That sounds like a good solution to all of the problems. I would
>> > propose that the basisOfRecord IS the the same thing as
>> your proposed
>> > dwc:subtype, so we should keep basisOfRecord.
>> >
>> > Net solution:
>> >
>> > 1) keep dcterms:type
>> > 2) use DCType vocabulary to control dcterms:type (so, StillImage,
>> > PhysicalObject, Event, etc.)
>> > 3) keep basisOfRecord
>> > 4) use our DwC-specific subtypes (PreservedSpecimen,
>> FossilSpecimen,
>> > HumanObservation, etc.) as the controlled vocabulary for
>> basisOfRecord
>> > without a formal type vocabulary (very close to how it is now, just
>> > some of the terms would go to dcterms:type).
>> > 5) add a recordClass term
>> > 6) use the DwCType vocabulary to control the recordClass
>> term instead
>> > of the dcterms:type term.
>> >
>> > This solutions fixes the Dublin Core - Darwin Core controlled
>> > vocabulary problem, retains all existing terms, isolates the
>> > controlled vocabulary that is specific to our domain,
>> making it very
>> > easy to expand without changes to the standard.
>> >
>> > Any objections?
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Gregor Hagedorn
>> > <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> How about we retain basisOfRecord, but have it refine
>> dcterms:type,
>> >>> drop dcterms:type and add a "recordClass" term in its
>> place that is
>> >>> governed exactly as dcterms:type is currently being used in the
>> >>> recently ratified version of the Core?
>> >>
>> >> recordClass for Taxon/Occurrence/Event sounds good.
>> >>
>> >> I am less sure about keeping the "perspective-dependent"
>> >> basisOfRecord-term in a place where dcterms:type. The dcterms:type
>> >> vocabulary is, in principle, extensible, and meant to be extended.
>> >> Except, of course, some specific xml-implementation of dublin core
>> >> prevent this... To avoid problems with this one might
>> desire to have
>> >> only the strict resource type vocabulary in dcterms:type.
>> Then this
>> >> could by PhysicalObject/Event and a dwc:subtype added to express
>> >> PreservedSpecimen/MachineObservation etc. Essentially,
>> MRTG intends
>> >> to use such a mrtg:subtype as well to differentiate different
>> >> StillImage or Text subtypes:
>> >>  http://www.keytonature.eu/wiki/MRTG_Schema_v0.8#Subtype
>> >>
>> >> This would then mean, DarwinCore might support:
>> >>  dwc:recordClass
>> >>  dcterms:type
>> >>  dwc:subtype
>> >>
>> >> Gregor
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert A. Morris
>> Professor of Computer Science (nominally retired)
>> UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390
>> Associate, Harvard University Herberia
>> email: ram at cs.umb.edu
>> web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/FilteredPush
>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>> phone (+1)617 287 6466
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>