[tdwg-content] What I learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
Tim Robertson (GBIF)
trobertson at gbif.org
Wed Oct 13 09:36:24 CEST 2010
I will also help with examples. If we are doing XML / RDF formats,
lets get an example record conforming to the Text guidelines in there
as well for completeness (most useful when dealing with checklists).
On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:31 PM, John Wieczorek wrote:
> I am interested in helping with an examples page. The page could
> have XML and RDF examples illustrating particular use cases, as you
> have recommended. Create an "Examples" page on the Table of Contents
> and then have all of the examples on one page with an index of links
> to specific examples at the top? I made a straw man page to show
> what I am thinking at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Examples
> .
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" <mdoering at gbif.org
> > wrote:
> Would we have the energy to compile example dwc records on how to
> use darwin core for certain use cases?
> The lack of guidance on how to use darwin core was mentioned
> earlier. An additional example webpage for the dwc website would
> surely be really helpful for not only newbies. A dwc record for bird
> watching, vegetation plot surveys, insect specimen collection,
> herbarium sheets, zoological garden visits, tissue sample, dna
> sequence, marine fishing net catches, etc
>
> Id volunteer to do the html page if Im given example records with a
> short use case description...
>
> Markus
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 13:14, Roger Hyam wrote:
>
> > Wow - what a thread to come back to.
> >
> > I saw my name mentioned so I ought to chip in. I also think we are
> conflating two distinct things under the name "occurrence".
> >
> > This point is largely just expanding on what Kevin just said.
> Going down the road he was wise enough not to go down!
> >
> > The vocabulary I briefly presented at TDWG was aimed at occurrence
> of taxa in regions but the general thrust of my talk was intended to
> pose the questions: Why should we score taxa to regions at all?
> Shouldn't this always be the results of a query on occurrence
> records? The answer will always depend on the question asked.
> >
> > Take two examples.
> >
> > A tiger roaming "free" in London living off a diet of squirrels
> and tourists. Occurrence records for this organism are just
> occurrence records. Why the tiger is in London (climate change,
> introduction, invasion, escape) is not a quality of it being there.
> They are value judgements added later.
> >
> > A tiger sitting in a cage a London Zoo is "managed" in that it is
> being maintained there by a human effort. We are recording the fact
> that someone has placed it there and held it in that position for
> our edification.
> >
> > As Kevin says, when I observe an individual (or flock of
> individuals) I do not observe their "introducedness" or their
> "nativeness" this is something that is derived from combining
> multiple observations of occurrence of individuals.
> >
> > I would therefore advocate that we just have a flag on an
> occurrence record that says "intended for distribution" i.e. this is
> not maintained here in a garden/zoo/farm etc. To say any more on a
> occurrence record is misleading and there are occasions when even
> this flag will be ignored in analysis. I think we already have this
> field.
> >
> > There are of course grey areas (biology always has grey areas). A
> Scots Pine growing in the highlands may be part of a 150 year old
> naturalistic plantation. It is therefore native to the region,
> possibly of local genetic stock but has been planted in that
> position. For some applications this could be considered managed and
> for others not.
> >
> > The status of taxa in regions is a completely different thing. As
> soon as we talk about aggregating multiple observations (or lack of
> them) then we are talking about the results of analysis instead of
> primary observations. Only at this point should we be talking about
> the status of the "occurrence" in terms of native/invasive/
> naturalised etc. This may not even be based on extant records. For
> example, a taxon can be invasive in an area without actually
> occurring there. i.e. it used to be there but is presumed to be
> irradiated.
> >
> > Does the problem occur because we are using the same term
> "occurrence" to mean both a primary unit of data gathering and the
> result of an analysis (possibly even just a hypothesis if it is the
> result of niche modelling)? How could we differentiate between these
> two? The discussion probably comes back to 'basisOfRecord' again and
> our fundamental classes of object.
> >
> > Sorry to be long winded.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> > On 12 Oct 2010, at 09:36, Kevin Richards wrote:
> >
> >> I also have always felt that "nativeness" should apply more to an
> occurrence than a taxon, but have swayed from one opinion to the
> other on a regular basis. So my conclusion is that "nativeness" is
> a propety of both, and require both, in a way - and that these
> different perspectives are actually the same thing.
> >>
> >> Eg, if we describe (in a basic way) :
> >> Ocurrence = Taxon at Location
> >>
> >> then if we say that Nativeness is a property of a Taxon that is
> restricted by Location (jerry's view)
> >> then this is equivalent to saying that Nativeness is a property
> of an Ocurrence ! (Rich's view)
> >>
> >> As Rich points out, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to apply
> Nativeness to a single occurrence, but I'm not sure this is what is
> meant by stating that "this specimen of Poa anceps that I collected
> from Christchurch is 'Native'" - but more that "I have found a
> specimen of Poa anceps in Christchurch and from knowledge of other
> previously recorded ocurrences, I know that this occurence/taxon is
> Native in this area"
> >>
> >> Also I tend to feel that a lot of biodiversity properties are
> properties of ocurrences - EVEN taxon names are a property of an
> occurrence and not of this 'concept' of a species - but I wont go
> down that road right now :-)
> >>
> >> Also, we discussed this topic a while ago on the tdwg content
> list, having worked out that "nativeness" or what we call
> "biostatus" is a fairly complicated topic, involving taxon names,
> locations, time, and aspects like 'origin' and 'presence', ...
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> ] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2010 5:41 p.m.
> >> To: Jerry Cooper; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>
> >> Hi Jerry,
> >>
> >> Before we agree to disagree, let me try to elaborate a bit more:
> >>
> >> I think we both agree that "Nativeness" (to borrow Dave's term)
> is a
> >> property of a taxon at a geographic locality (it could also be a
> property of
> >> a taxon in a class of habitat, but few people actually frame it
> this way).
> >>
> >> The reason I think that "Nativeness" is best represented as a
> property of an
> >> Occurrence, rather than of a taxon, is that a taxon is a
> circumscribed set
> >> of organisms, usually based on evolutionary relatedness or
> morphological or
> >> genetic similarity. By contrast, an Occurrence is about the
> presence of a
> >> member or multiple members of a taxon concept in space and time
> (i.e., at a
> >> particular place and time).
> >>
> >> We often think of Occurrence records in terms of individual
> organisms (e.g.,
> >> specimens, or specific observed or photographed organisms), and I
> agree,
> >> it's weird to think of "Nativeness" as it applies to an
> individual organism.
> >> However, my understanding is that Occurrence instances can also
> apply to
> >> populations -- which is what terms such as establishmentMeans and
> >> occurrenceStatus fit into this class.
> >>
> >> More generally, if we agree that "Nativeness" is a property of a
> taxon at a
> >> particular locality, the way that this intersection is usually
> manifest in
> >> DwC is via Occurrence and Event instances.
> >>
> >> How else would you represent "Nativeness" within DwC?
> >>
> >> Aloha,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
> Cooper
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 6:02 PM
> >>> To: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>> We will have to agree to disagree.
> >>>
> >>> For me at least 'Native', 'Invasive' etc are clearly not
> >>> properties associated with a collection event. They are
> >>> collective statements, not necessarily about properties of
> >>> the taxon as a whole, but about the properties of a taxon in
> >>> some restricted sense - usually geographically restricted.
> >>>
> >>> GISIN, like our model here in NZ, pulls together such items
> >>> under a triplet of taxon/occurrence statement/geographical
> >>> extent linked to a publication.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2010 4:23 p.m.
> >>> To: Jerry Cooper
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] What I learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jerry,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this is a road I've been down before. Intuitively,
> >>> these terms seem like they should apply to taxon concepts,
> >>> but it turns out that's not the right way to do it. Things
> >>> like "native" and "invasive" are not properties of taxon
> >>> concepts; they're the property of an occurrence (which, I
> >>> suspect, is why establishmentMeans is included in the
> >>> Occurrence class in DwC; e.g., see the examples at
> >>> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
> Cooper
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:38 PM
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I learned at the
> >>> TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rich,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let's not confuse those terms which are best applied
> >>> to a taxon concept rather than a specific
> >>> collection/observation of a taxon at a location.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are existing vocabularies for taxon-related
> >>> provenance, like those in GISIN, or the vocabulary Roger
> >>> mentioned in his PESI talk at TDWG.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, against a specific collection you can only
> >>> record what the recorder actually knows at that location for
> >>> that specific collected taxon, and not to infer a status like
> >>> 'introduced' etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, to me, the vocabulary reduces even further - and
> >>> the obvious ones are 'in cultivation', 'in captivity',
> >>> 'border intercept' . Our botanical collection management
> >>> system would hold more data on provenance of a specific
> >>> collection and linkages between events - from the wild at t=1,
> >>> x=1 to cultivation in botanic garden Y at t=2, X=2 etc. But
> >>> then we often have that data because we are generating it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jerry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Pyle
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2010 3:27 p.m.
> >>> To: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au; tuco at berkeley.edu
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I learned at the
> >>> TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I certainly agree it's important! I was just saying
> >>> that a simple flag probably wouldn't be enough. I like the
> >>> idea of a controlled vocabulary (as you and John both allude
> >>> to), and I can imagine about a half-dozen terms that our
> >>> community will no-doubt adopt with almost no debate..... :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In my mind, the broadest categories (and likely most
> >>> useful) would be something like:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Native (was there without any assistance from humans)
> >>>
> >>> Introduced (got there with the assistance of humans,
> >>> but is inhabiting the natural environment)
> >>>
> >>> Captive (brought by humans and still maintained in
> captivity)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You might also throw in "Cryptogenic", which is an
> >>> assertion that we do not know which of these categories a
> >>> particular organism falls (not the same as null, which means
> >>> we don't know whether or not we know)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of course, each of these can be further subdivded,
> >>> but the more we subdivide, the greater the ratio of
> >>> fuzzy:clean distinctions. I would say that the terms should
> >>> be established in consultation with those most likely to use
> >>> them (e.g., as you suggest, distribution analysis, niche
> modellers,
> >>> etc.) For example, it might be useful to distinguish between
> >>> an organism that was itself introduced, compared to the
> >>> progeny (or a well-established
> >>> population) of an intoduced organism. This information can be
> >>> useful for separating things likely to become established in
> >>> new localities, vs. things that do not seem to "take" in a
> >>> novel environment.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway...I didn't want to say a lot on this topic
> >>> (too late?); I just wanted to steer more towards controlled
> >>> vocabulary, than simple flag field.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Aloha,
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> >>> [mailto:Donald.Hobern at csiro.au]
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 3:44 PM
> >>> To: Richard Pyle; tuco at berkeley.edu
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] What I learned at
> >>> the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rich.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I recognise this (and could probably define
> >>> many different useful flags). The bottom line is really
> >>> whether or not the location is one which should be used for
> >>> distribution analysis, niche modelling and similar
> >>> activities. There will certainly be many grey areas, but it
> >>> would be good if software could weed out captive occurrences.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donald
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> untitled
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of
> >>> Living Australia
> >>>
> >>> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 1700,
> >>> Canberra, ACT 2601
> >>>
> >>> Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
> >>>
> >>> Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> >>> <mailto:Donald.Hobern at csiro.au>
> >>>
> >>> Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> ]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2010 12:33 PM
> >>> To: Hobern, Donald (CES, Black Mountain);
> >>> tuco at berkeley.edu
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] What I learned at
> >>> the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not so sure a simple flag will do it. We
> >>> have examples ranging from animals in zoos, to escaped
> >>> animals, to intentionally and unintentionally introduced
> >>> populations, to naturalized populations -- and just about
> >>> everything in-between. Where on this spectrum would you draw
> >>> the line for flagging something as "naturally occurring"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> From:
> >>> tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
> >>> Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:59 PM
> >>> To: tuco at berkeley.edu
> >>> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I
> >>> learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, John.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is useful, but completely
> >>> uncontrolled - effectively a verbatimEstablishmentMeans.
> >>> Having a more controlled version or a simple flag which could
> >>> be machine-processible in those cases where providers can
> >>> supply it would be useful.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donald
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> untitled
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donald Hobern, Director,
> >>> Atlas of Living Australia
> >>>
> >>> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box
> >>> 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
> >>>
> >>> Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
> >>>
> >>> Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> >>> <mailto:Donald.Hobern at csiro.au>
> >>>
> >>> Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: gtuco.btuco at gmail.com
> >>> [mailto:gtuco.btuco at gmail.com] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:34 AM
> >>> To: Hobern, Donald (CES, Black Mountain)
> >>> Cc: jsachs at csee.umbc.edu;
> >>> tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] What I
> >>> learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Natural occurrence is meant to be
> >>> captured through the term dwc:establishmentMeans
> >>> (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#establishmentMeans).
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:16 PM,
> >>> <Donald.Hobern at csiro.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Joel.
> >>>
> >>> Nice summary. One addition which we
> >>> do need to resolve (and which has been suggested in recent
> >>> months) is to have a flag to indicate whether a record should
> >>> be considered to show a "natural"
> >>> occurrence (in distinction from cultivation, botanic gardens,
> >>> zoos, etc.).
> >>> This is not so much an issue in a BioBlitz, but is certainly
> >>> a factor with citizen science recording in general - see the
> >>> number of zoo animals in the Flickr EOL group.
> >>>
> >>> Donald
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of
> >>> Living Australia
> >>> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box
> >>> 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
> >>> Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
> >>> Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> >>> Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of joel
> sachs
> >>> Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 10:47 PM
> >>> To: tdwg-bioblitz at googlegroups.com;
> >>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> Subject: [tdwg-content] What I
> >>> learned at the TechnoBioBlitz
> >>>
> >>> One of the goals of the recent
> >>> bioblitz was to think about the suitability and
> >>> appropriatness of TDWG standards for citizen science. Robert
> >>> Stevenson has volunteered to take the lead on preparing a
> >>> technobioblitz lessons learned document, and though the scope
> >>> of this document is not yet determined, I think the audience
> >>> will include bioblitz organizers, software developers, and
> >>> TDWG as a whole. I hope no one is shy about sharing lessons
> >>> they think they learned, or suggestions that they have. We
> >>> can use the bioblitz google group for this discussion, and
> >>> copy in tdwg-content when our discussion is standards-specific.
> >>>
> >>> Here are some of my immediate observations:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Darwin Core is almost exactly
> >>> right for citizen science. However, there is a desperate need
> >>> for examples and templates of its use. To illustrate this
> >>> need: one of the developers spoke of the design choice
> >>> between "a simple csv file and a Darwin Core record". But a
> >>> simple csv file is a legitimate representation of Darwin
> >>> Core! To be fair to the developer, such a sentence might not
> >>> have struck me as absurd a year ago, before Remsen said
> >>> "let's use DwC for the bioblitz".
> >>>
> >>> We provided a couple of example DwC
> >>> records (text and rdf) in the bioblitz data profile [1]. I
> >>> think the lessons learned document should include an on-line
> >>> catalog of cut-and-pasteable examples covering a variety of
> >>> use cases, together with a dead simple desciption of DwC,
> >>> something like "Darwin Core is a collection of terms,
> >>> together with definitions."
> >>>
> >>> Here are areas where we augemented or
> >>> diverged from DwC in the bioblitz:
> >>>
> >>> i. We added obs:observedBy [2], since
> >>> there is no equivalent property in DwC, and it's important in
> >>> Citizen Science (though often not available).
> >>>
> >>> ii. We used geo:lat and geo:long [3]
> >>> instead of DwC terms for latitude and longitude. The geo
> >>> namespace is a well used and supported standard, and records
> >>> with geo coordinates are automatically mapped by several
> >>> applications. Since everyone was using GPS to retrieve their
> >>> coordinates, we were able to assume WGS-84 as the datum.
> >>>
> >>> If someone had used another Datum,
> >>> say XYZ, we would have added columns to the Fusion table so
> >>> that they could have expressed their coordiantes in DwC, as, e.g.:
> >>> DwC:decimalLatitude=41.5
> >>> DwC:decimalLongitude=-70.7
> >>> DwC:geodeticDatum=XYZ
> >>>
> >>> (I would argue that it should be
> >>> kosher DwC to express the above as simply XYZ:lat and
> >>> XYZ:long. DwC already incorporates terms from other
> >>> namespaces, such as Dublin Core, so there is precedent for this.
> >>>
> >>> 2. DwC:scientificName might be more
> >>> user friendly than taxonomy:binomial and the other taxonomy
> >>> machine tags EOL uses for flickr images. If
> >>> DwC:scientificName isn't self-explanatory enough, a user can
> >>> look it up, and see that any scientific name is acceptable,
> >>> at any taxonomic rank, or not having any rank. And once we
> >>> have a scientific name, higher ranks can be inferred.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Catalogue of Life was an important
> >>> part of the workflow, but we had some problems with it.
> >>> Future bioblitzes might consider using something like a CoL
> >>> fork, as recently described by Rod Page [4].
> >>>
> >>> 4. We didn't include "basisOfRecord"
> >>> in the original data profile, and so it wasn't a column in
> >>> the Fusion Table [5]. But when a transcriber felt it was
> >>> necessary to include in order to capture data in a particular
> >>> field sheet, she just added the column to the table. This
> >>> flexibility of schema is important, and is in harmony with
> >>> the semantic web.
> >>>
> >>> 5. There seemed to be enthusiasm for
> >>> another field event at next year's TDWG. This could be an
> >>> opportunity to gather other types of data (eg.
> >>> character data) and thereby
> >>> i) expose meeting particpants to
> >>> another set of everyday problems from the world of
> >>> biodiversity workflows, and ii) try other TDWG technology on
> >>> for size, e.g. the observation exchange format, annotation
> >>> framework, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Happy Thanksgiving to all in Canada -
> >>> Joel.
> >>> ----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1.
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/tdwg-bioblitz/web/tdwg-bioblitz
> >> -profile-v1-1
> >>> 2. Slightly bastardizing our old
> >>> observation ontology -
> >>> http://spire.umbc.edu/ontologies/Observation.owl
> >>> 3. http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
> >>> 4.
> >>> http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2010/10/replicating-and-forking-dat
> >> a-in-2010.html
> >>> 5.
> >>> http://tables.googlelabs.com/DataSource?dsrcid=248798
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tdwg-content mailing list
> >>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tdwg-content mailing list
> >>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> >>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101013/1acac00e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list