[tdwg-content] Darwin Core vs. Simple Darwin Core

Peter DeVries pete.devries at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 21:27:09 CEST 2011

This is a little bit of a hack but it should work.


The language variants are subproperties of the dwc:vernacularName

This would also avoid the somewhat awkward SPARQL queries needed when you
want to query for "Name"@en and not "Name"@es

* For a more semantic web friendly version I was thinking of the following
predicate hierarchy.

  hasVernacularName = hasCommonName

The GNI URI forms would be


I have an example of this in the Knowledge Base.

It still has a bug in that the GNI URI's should have been replaced with
their human readable skos:prefLabels as they are in URIburner and Sig.ma.

You can click through the related things in this KB view. bit.ly


Note how you can click between the links to the taxonomic authors etc, and
the links to citebank.org web pages (not LOD RDF resources)

- Pete

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:47 AM, joel sachs <jsachs at csee.umbc.edu> wrote:

> Darwin Core is one of my favourite things. It's simple, elegant, and
> flexible. I wasn't there at design time, so I don't know if it was
> designed with the semantic web in mind, but it looks like it. It is, as
> John put it, primarily a collection of terms [and their definitions]. So
> if two people/agents use the same terms, they will share the same
> semantics. (This is why I think that a "more semantic Darwin Core" is not
> the appropriate goal for a Darwin Core/rdf working group.)
> I'm concerned that there's so much confusion concerning DwC, since
> confusion is (typically) a barrier to adoption.
> One source of confusion is Simple Darwin Core. A huge fraction of DwC
> records can be expressed as spreadsheets. Since *all* Simple DwC records
> can be expressed as spreadsheets, many people think
> Simple Darwin Core = spreadsheet-expressible Darwin Core
> (which isn't true). This means that if they want to express their data as
> a spreadsheet, they think they need to conform to Simple Darwin Core.
> The requirement of Simple Darwin Core is that there be no repeated
> elements. But the requirement for spreadsheet-expressible Darwin Core is
> that there be no repeated nested elements. I previously argued
> (http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002220.html) in
> favour of using subscripts to represent elements in repeated nests
> (thereby permitting their use in spreadsheets). Even if we don't permit
> that, I'm not sure that the benefits of maintaing a separate Simple Darwin
> Core standard, in addition to the regular Darwin Core standard, are
> greater than the costs in terms of giving people wrong ideas. (I prefer
> the presentation at http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/xml/index.htm,
> where Simple DwC is presented as simply one of several XML schemas for
> Darwin Core.)
> I *think* I see the motivation for Simple DwC. Suppose X wants to use
> Darwin Core, but doesn't know much about databases, and just wants to put
> all his data in a spreadsheet. He might not know what a repeated, nested
> data structure is. So it's easiest to just say to him "don't repeat any
> elements, and you'll be fine - your records will be
> spreadsheet-expressible". I agree that that's a benefit. Are there others?
> Thanks -
> Joel.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20110726/d9bcaca0/attachment.html 

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list