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

John R. WIECZOREK tuco at berkeley.edu
Tue Sep 15 19:51:02 CEST 2009

I'm moving this conversation into tdwg-content to weave together the
conversation for all.

Sorry about the confusion. The conversation has progressed in this
side thread beyond my proposal in the tdwg-content list.

I'm not sure what you mean by shield, but yes, the idea is to make
sure they are minimally affected by whatever may happen to NCD. To me
that means using a refinement, technically.

Yes, at least from the process perspective there is still an
opportunity to rework NCD, as it hasn't fully progressed through the
standards process. It is now at essentially the same stage as Darwin
Core, though I expect Darwin Core to be ready for Executive Review
this week, while NCD may take longer.

I agree that consistent conventions would be nice across standards.
Ultimately it will help all of our stakeholders. But DwC is the first
to follow the vocabulary-first paradigm in the footsteps of Dublin
Core. I can imagine inertia or resistance for other standards in the
TDWG family.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM,  <renato at cria.org.br> wrote:
> Hi John,
> Initially I had the impression that you repeated the same proposal that
> you sent to the mailing list, but now I see what you mean. Sorry.
> So the idea is to actually shield DwC terms, not exactly refine the NCD
> ones. I would prefer to see NCD terms being directly used, but I
> understand your position. Although we have the chance to change NCD, I
> would feel better knowing Roger's opinion about this. It's a strange
> situation because in theory we shouldn't be changing NCD. It is already
> fully ratified (or am I wrong, Wouter?). So we shouldn't expect changes,
> unless NCD decides to release a new version and go through the TDWG
> process all over again.
> I definitely agree that we should try to define and use the same namespace
> and naming conventions across our standards.
> --
> Renato
>> I think my solution is already congruent with what you are saying,
>> Renato. My proposed solution is to declare these DwC terms as formal
>> refinements of the NCD terms. If the NCD terms change between now and
>> when that standard gets ratified, all DwC will have to do is change
>> the refines attributes - no one in implementation will be affected.
>> That aside, I think it would be best if NCD followed the established
>> DC pattern of term identification, not just for consistency, but also
>> for usability. I can definitely foresee people wanting to use the
>> fielded text solution for sharing NCD records, and the way the terms
>> are identified now that will be a mess.
>> Here are the terms I have proposed and their formal refinements.
>> dwc:institutionCode refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Code
>> dwc:institutionID refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Id
>> dwc:collectionCode refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Collection#Code
>> dwc:collectionID refines http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Collection#Id
>> dwc:ownerInstitutionCode refines
>> http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/Institution#Code
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list