[tdwg-content] New term resolution: dcterms:source
tuco at berkeley.edu
Wed Jul 6 19:47:20 CEST 2011
I see and agree with what you are saying. I retract the proposal to remove
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Paul J. Morris <mole at morris.net> wrote:
> I'd concur with John except for that pesky little word in the
> definition of dcterms:source, "derived"
> "A related resource from which the described resource is derived."
> The history of recordURL, relatedInformation, and occurrenceDetails all
> have exactly the opposite meaning in my mind. All three of those were
> places to find additional information that was derived from some set of
> primary objects (specimen, field notes, map, etc). A publication that
> synthesises the most detailed information about an occurrence is derived
> from these primary sources of information. Carrying such a publication as a
> dcterms:source seems exactly backwards.
> I wouldn't mind using dcterms:source to indicate that a specimen label is
> derived from field notes or that a specimen label is derived from a ledger
> entry. However I would object to dcterms:source being used to indicate that
> a publication is the source of a specimen record, when the reality is almost
> certainly the other way around.
> I don't concur that the intent of dcterms:source is similar in definition
> or intent to occurrenceDetails.
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0700
> John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > I agree that the meaning of dcterms:source is different from the
> > stated meaning of dwc:occurrenceDetails. The latter term originated
> > with OBIS as
> > recordURL - Gives the web address of the page where more information
> > on this particular record (not on the whole dataset) can be found.
> > and was re-cast in Darwin Core 1.4 as
> > relatedInformation - Free text references to information not
> > delivered via the conceptual schema, including URLs to specimen
> > details, publications, bibliographic references, etc.
> > and is currently defined as
> > occurrenceDetails - A reference (publication, URI) to the most
> > detailed information
> > available about the Occurrence.
> > So, one could argue that the dcterms:source is not necessarily the
> > most detailed information available, and it would certainly not be
> > only about Occurrences.
> > So, occurrenceDetails certainly is no substitute for dcterms:source,
> > and dcterms:source doesn't exactly circumscribe occurrenceDetails as
> > defined. Nevertheless, the concepts are so nearly the same in
> > definition, and certainly in intent, that I propose that adding
> > dcterms:source obviates the need for occurrenceDetails as it will
> > sufficiently cover the intended use of occurrenceDetails while
> > allowing the same for all record types.
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn
> > <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > I think the two terms are different.
> > >
> > > my understanding is that dcterms source expresses a relation
> > > between a (usually digital) record and another record, that is
> > > derived from the first.
> > >
> > > I think this is very useful in DwC in cases, where records are taken
> > > directly from a publication.
> > >
> > > However, it does not replace the fact that the source of the record
> > > is the digitization project of collection X and that the record is
> > > also cited in a recent publication.
> > >
> > > I have doubts whether occurrenceDetail is a good label for the
> > > latter concept, however.
> > >
> > > Gregor
> > >
> Paul J. Morris
> Biodiversity Informatics Manager
> Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
> mole at morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content