[tdwg-content] NCD and DwC

[John R. WIECZOREK]

OK, if we're agreed in principle to share these terms in common and
upgrade them to meet the more general uses, I propose to have the
following terms in the Darwin Core namespace, then NCD can reuse them.
The big reason is that we (DwC) would otherwise have to wait for NCD
to be finalized, lest we be given a moving target. In Darwin Core we
would leave these all as record-level terms, without assigning them to
a "Collection" or "Dataset" class.

institutionCode
Definition: The name (or acronym) in use by the institution having
custody of the object(s) or information referred to in the record.
Comment: Examples: "MVZ", "FMNH", "AKN-CLO"

institutionID
Definition: An identifier for the institution having custody of the
object(s) or information referred to in the record.
Refines: http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier

collectionCode
Definition: The name, acronym, coden, or initialism identifying the
collection or data set from which the record was derived.
Comment: Examples: "Mammals", "Hildebrandt", "eBird"

collectionID
Definition: An identifier for the collection or dataset from which the
record was derived. For physical specimens, the recommended best
practice is to use the identifier in a collections registry such as
the Biodiversity Collections Index
(http://www.biodiversitycollectionsindex.org/).
Comment: Example: "urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:34818"
Refines: http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Wouter Addink <wouter at eti.uva.nl> wrote:
> Dear Gail,
>
>
>
> I’ve good news. It looks like the people in the NCD group agree with all
> suggested changes:
>
>
>
> 1) Dublin Core recommends the use of the dcterms rather than their
> antiquated dc counterparts. Shouldn't NCD follow suit? Specific
> example: instead of http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source, use
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/source.
>
> 2) NCD is using terms from the TDWG ontology, which is to date an
> unfinished academic exercise without any review. This dependency
> seems to me to guarantee that NCD will require revision when the
> ontology is revised. This wouldn't necessarily be required if NCD took the
> reigns  and defined terms that aren't already in another standard (the
> Ontology does not fit into this category) within its own domain.
>
> Specifically, abandon http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ in favor of
> http://rs.tdwg.org/ncd/terms/.
>
> 3) Reword some of the NCD term definitions so that NCD can be used
> more generally for data sets (data collections), and not just for
> object collections.
>
> I’ve not yet received feedback on this from Roger Hyam however. But, unless
> he disagrees and comes with a better solution, I think we can conclude that
> the changes are agreed and that NCD will be adapted for these changes. I am
> not sure yet when exactly, but I want to have NCD finalized soon (aim is
> this month).
>
> Wouter