[tdwg-content] Latest DwC as TAPIR output model?

Markus Döring m.doering at mac.com
Sat Aug 7 21:09:45 CEST 2010

not sure where exactly the conversation started, but I assume you are aware of the official tapir model for the simple darwin core? It looks as if this is up to date:

In case you would like a flexible model that also allows for non flat extension records, we have created a new terms dwc tapir model which is used by the IPT:

The schema referenced is this one:

it defines a "DarwinExtensions" hook element in addition to the regular dwc terms. But no restrictions are made to how the extensions are constructed, it keeps it wide open.


On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:47, Tim Robertson (GBIF) wrote:

> Hi all,
> This thread started as a query about the availability of the latest DwC in TAPIR output models, and specifically for use with TAPIRLink.  
> John correctly points out that the TDWG list should have been copied from the start, and I am remedying that now.  I have condensed the thread to only the main points to make it easy to digest, and suggest we continue the discussion here.  The current point in the discussion relates to the SimpleDarwinCore being flat in nature, and therefore why it holds a subset of all the DwC terms documented in the standard. 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:59 AM, John Wieczorek wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I wish that this conversation had taken place on the tdwg-content list so that others might take advantage of the discussion, but I don't feel comfortable moving someone else's conversations there.
> Good point John.  Sorry all, this was my mistake.
>> The Simple Darwin Core Schema is up to date. It does not contain the MeasurementOrFact terms, nor the ResourceRelationship terms, precisely because, as Renato said, the Simple Darwin Core is flat and the other terms in those two sets make little sense in a flat schema because they would allow you to share no more than one MeasurementOrFact and one ResourceRelationship.
>> There is a Generic Darwin Core schema that provides a model for building other schemas from the Darwin Core, but it is not an application schema as the SimpleDarwinCore schema is. At least two groups are using the Generic Darwin Core schema imported into other schemas to extend the capabilities of the Generic Darwin Core - the germ plasm folks and the Apiary folks. The former have a published schema at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/source/browse/#svn/trunk/xsd/profiles/germplasm, while the latter are working on one for herbarium sheet data entry, for which they are interested in many more types of annotations than just the Identification class found in Darwin Core presently.
>> If there is more that you want to share than just the Simple Darwin Core, but don't actually need a more complex structure, one simple way to do it would be to use the dynamicProperties term from Simple Darwin Core. The description is at http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dynamicProperties and further explanation on its use can be found at in the "Do More with Simple Darwin Core" section (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#domore) of the Simple Darwin Core page.
>> Hope that helps,
>> John
>> Renato,
>> Simple Darwin Core is almost what I want but looking at the schema here http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd
>> it is lacking the auxillary terms that occur that are listed here http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm - which are the Measurement of Fact terms and the Resource Relationship terms.
>> So ideally I would like all the terms listed here http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm included however if that is too difficult or would take too long then I would be happy with the Simple Darwin Core schema as described here http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd
>> Paul
>> I'm not sure if the simple DwC schema is up-to-date, but it seems to
>> contain more than 150 elements. I think the idea behind "simple" resides
>> in the fact that the schema defines a flat structure, not that it only
>> contains a subset of DarwinCore.
>> I can check if that schema is up-to-date and then build the output model,
>> but first I would just need to know from you guys if this kind of schema
>> will suit your needs.
>> Renato
>> > I was hoping the whole schema :-)
>> >
>> > Here in Australia the OZCAM community (all Australian museums) has just
>> > migrated it's schema to the new standard - using about 60 or 70 of the
>> > fields so we would like to be able to expose all of them.
>> >
>> > With my TDWG exec hat on I'd like to think that any data providers could
>> > expose their data using the new DwC schema and GBIF being the largest
>> > consumer of data should be doing their  utmost to facilitate that being
>> > possible.
>> > TapirLink is the ideal way to do that as many are using it already and so
>> > upgrading providers to the new schema using Tapirlink should be relatively
>> > easy.
>> > Paul
>> >> I would think an output based on the simple DwC should be made available
>> >> and GBIF will promote that with TAPIRLink, but I leave it to Paul to
>> >> shout if he anticipates something else?
>> >> Tim
>> >>> You're right. There's no output model for the latest DwC, but it should
>> >>> be
>> >>> easy to make one. Is there a specific XML Schema for the data structure
>> >>> or
>> >>> are you planning to use the simple DwC?
>> >>>
>> >>> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want, just let me know the schema and I can quickly build a
>> >>> model
>> >>> for it.
>> >>> Renato
>> >>>> Do you know if anyone put together output models for the TAPIR using
>> >>>> the latest DwC?
>> >>>> http://rs.tdwg.org/tapir/cs/dwc/ does not appear to have any and the
>> >>>> folks in Australia are looking into this.  Just want to make sure
>> >>>> there aren't any floating around already.
>> >>>> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list