[tdwg-content] biostatus

[Kevin Richards]

A diagram I just created to illustrate how I see the core TDWG models / Darwin Core / subgroup activities and uses cases fitting together.

http://202.27.243.4/tdwg/coremodel.jpg

Thoughts?

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: gtuco.btuco at gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco at gmail.com] On Behalf Of John R. WIECZOREK
Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 9:52 a.m.
To: Kevin Richards
Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus

If the status terms can be satisfactorily defined, agreed upon without
protracted deliberation and submitted following the process described
at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/SubmittingIssues#New_Term_Request),
then there is no reason not to include them now in the version as a
response to public comment. If they are not at that state of maturity,
DwC shouldn't wait for them.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Kevin
Richards<RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
> Yes, I see.  It was a bit late at night.  :-)
>
>
>
> Those properties look like a good start.  What is the plan with these
> "extension" properties and the Dariwn Core standard process?  Will they be
> included?  Are they planned to be submitted for the next round/version?
>
>
>
> I don't particular see these as "extensions".  More like related terms and
> properties (probably the same thing really).  "Extension" seemed to be more
> relevant when we were dealing mainly with XML schemas, where they really
> needed to be extended.  But I think now we have taken a more
> modeling/ontological approach, we could just add them as additional
> properties under a different heading.  There is no need for an implementer
> of DwC2 to use ALL fields, just those that make sense for their specific use
> case - and I think this is where TDWG could (or will need to) have an
> influence - ie how a standard is applied to specific use cases.
>
>
>
> Another thought - the locality stuff really needs to be thought through a
> bit more - probably has been by some subgroups in TDWG??  Ie need to tie in
> with other Geo standards and ontology efforts in the Geo world.  Regions,
> Spatial coords/params etc...  May have already been thought of, I'm not sure.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen at gbif.org]
> Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 12:13 a.m.
> To: Kevin Richards
> Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Stan Blum; tuco at berkeley.edu Wieczorek;
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org Mailing List
>
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> Each sheet in the file is a different extension, that includes a verncular
> extension.   The one I wished to direct you to is the one entitled
> Distribution.    The taxon concept ID is implied as the extension is
> conceptually tied to the core taxon class via taxonID.
>
>
>
> the term gbif:occurrenceStatus corresponds to your biostatus occurrence and
> is tied to a vocabulary for this term at
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tVs-UWMXnkD3slwIE8T336w&output=html
>
> under the sheet entitled OccurrenceStatus
>
>
>
> the term gbif:nativeness corresponds to your biostatus origin and is tied to
> a vocabulary entitled Nativeness.
>
>
>
> source, locality, and other elements are included.  This stuff is in draft
> for us but it seems fairly congruent.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
>
> This draft you mention looks like it is for vernacular names, and other
> stuff, but not biostatus in particular.  But the same propeties could be
> applied to biostatus, ie
>
>
>
> - taxon concept id
>
> - biostatus origin (indigenous, exotic, etc)
>
> - biostatus occurrence (absent, present, etc)
>
> - date / temporal
>
> - publication / source
>
> - locality / locationId / code / geospatial parameters
>
>
>
> hopefully mostly using Dublin Core properties, ISO codes and other
> standards.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: David Remsen (GBIF) [dremsen at gbif.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 5:48 p.m.
> To: Blum, Stan
> Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Kevin Richards; tuco at berkeley.edu;
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] biostatus
>
> We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents
> our thoughts in this area.
>
>
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=html
>
>
>
> DR
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:
>
> OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include
> some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is
> native or otherwise.  As Rich says, that may need further thought to be
> included in DwC in this round.  I think there is a strong rationale for
> having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y.  Any
> organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive,
> etc.) by comparison against that footprint.  That means...
>
> The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be
> "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at
> the place at that time.  Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is
> native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a)
> distribution of the taxon.
>
> -Stan
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Kevin Richards [RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM
> To: Blum, Stan; tuco at berkeley.edu
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus
>
> <snip>
>
> I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was
> what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen
> itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be
> deemed invasive, surely.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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
>

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