[tdwg-content] [Fwd: Re: NCD and DwC]

Kevin Richards RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz
Tue Sep 15 23:52:25 CEST 2009

"I agree that consistent conventions would be nice across standards."

I second this opinion!
It seems some standards are based around XML/XSD, some around RDF, some are strongly influenced by the TDWG core ontology (LSID vocs), which is not even a standard. etc, etc

It would be good to have a recommended approach to generating a standard specification (or is there one already??).
- use the "Core TDWG model" to guide you standard development
- reuse any existing standards as much as possible, eg DC, FOAF
- generate specific Use Cases for the problem domain
- use UML (or similar) to model your problem domain
- use RDF or OWL to develop classes and properties for the UML model
- feedback new ideas/models to the "Core model"
- generate recommendations for use of the standard model in particular use cases, eg "Use the Observation TDWG class, with the GUID specified in the dc:identifier field, owner in dc:creator, to transfer specimen data from herbarium A to herbarium B using RDF+XML for the markup ..."
- generate example instance documents in the various recommended formats

This works in conjunction with the diagram I recently posted in an email (


Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list