[tdwg-content] dwc:associatedOccurrences

[Mark Wilden]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> I think it is extremely useful to take the
> first step by creating vocabularies within disciplines that make sense
> within that discipline.

Me too, but I said "group," not "discipline." If each domain
(discipline) has its own controlled vocabulary, the union of these is
indeed was Bob was looking for, I think. But if CAS has one vocabulary
for its specimen date and AMNH has another, I don't call that very
controlled. A useful first step, though.

> This approach allows for buy-in at a natural level
> of organization and understanding (not to mention activity), allows
> evolution, and can be resolved at the level of ontologies
> that synonymize between vocabularies when necessary.

But I wonder if it's better to have each of those 50 groups
(organizations) come up with its own vocabulary, then reconcile them,
or instead have a meta-group like, oh, TDWG or GBIF, decide on one
that makes sense.

///ark
Web Applications Developer
Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics
California Academy of Sciences