[tdwg-content] RFC 2119: Re: Public comment on the Darwin Core RDF Guide

[Paul J. Morris]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 07:47:46 -0500
Jonathan A Rees <rees at mumble.net> wrote:
> I'm very skeptical of applying 2119 to vocabulary specifications. I
> don't think there's any clear agreement on what constitutes
> conformance to a vocabulary specification

On the level of specifying the meaning of a vocabulary, I think I agree
with you.  It doesn't feel like specifying that dwc:scientificName
MUST/SHOULD/MAY carry something that is actually a scientific name is
particularly helpful.   

However, the DarwinCore RDF guide feels like an implementer's guide in
how to write applications that produce and consume RDF using TDWG
DarwinCore vocabulary, a specification that, in order to be understood
and not cause problems for consuming applications, producers of
DarwinCore in RDF should e.g. assert dwc:recordedBy "Asa Gray" or
dwciri:recordedBy <http://viaf.org/viaf/7504476> but not dwc:recordedBy
<http://viaf.org/viaf/7504476> or dwciri:recordedBy "Asa Gray".   

http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Guide/ feels particularly relevant - it is
a developer's guide that accompanies the EARL vocabulary specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/.  In an earlier draft of EARL, the
language of RFC 2119 was explicitly invoked
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/, in the latest
version, the RFC 2119 language was removed from the vocabulary
specification and relegated to the develper's guide.  This feels very
paralell to TDWG DarwinCore and the TDWG DarwinCore RDF guide.   

-Paul
-- 
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
mole at morris.net  AA3SD  PGP public key available