[tdwg-content] [External] summary of issues related to Darwin Core needing action
Steve Baskauf
steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
Fri Jul 25 15:22:01 CEST 2014
Cyndi,
OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core:
*Issue 1.* The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed recommended for
adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a process
described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no precedent for
making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John Wieczorek
requested guidance from the executive (see his email just forwarded to
the list).
*Action needed:* Guidance from the executive about how to handle this
kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide
proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.
*Issue 2.* At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting in
November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for making a
number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes. The
details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties held
online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January 2014,
those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker [3] as
issues 205-226.
*Action needed:* Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not clear
who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done this
in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed functioning
(but that is really a different issue that should not be allowed to
derail these issues). *Note: *If these proposed changes are adopted
(and they probably should be as a block because they are really a
package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4] will need to be
rewritten.
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a
complicated situation worse.
Steve
[1] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf section entitled
"What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?"
[2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204
[3] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list
[4]
https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_to_be_used_for_type_declarations_of_resources_de
Cynthia Parr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of the
> Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a lot
> of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge
> volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have
> consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our
> best to juggle our many responsibilities.
>
> Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive from
> the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that Joel is
> calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not sure if
> Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review manager)
> or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to help as I
> can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity -- communication is
> hard enough given how distributed and multi-national we are!)
>
> Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN proposal
> to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer
> organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the
> proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as
> plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do.
> I've already had some conversations with other members since Florence
> about the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would
> be happy to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please
> contact me offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being
> part of this group.
>
> Cyndy
> TDWG Chair
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org
> <mailto:Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the
> administration and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those
> volunteers must put in a lot of volunteer time on everything
> required for TDWG administration, including the ratification
> process. This year I know that dealing with the annual conference
> issues and changing venues in the middle of the year has been very
> time demanding on those volunteers. Having been in the situation,
> I have a lot of empathy for those on the Executive Committee who
> must deal with all of TDWG's issues while holding down a full
> time, paid job.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org>
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Steven J. Baskauf
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM
> *To:* Chuck Miller; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes to
> Darwin Core
>
>
>
> I totally understand the challenge to getting things done in the
> context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But that isn't
> the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide. In
> both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours
> of work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a
> working group. The problem is that those proposals have been held
> up by many months because nobody has made administrative decisions
> necessary to move them forward. We don't need a grant or more
> volunteer hours to fix that problem.
>
> The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary
> management is a little more complicated. But again a group of
> volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the
> VoMaG report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations -
> accept, reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard
> or whatever. Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not
> lack of volunteer time.
>
> Steve
>
> On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote:
>
> I want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG
> Technical Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and
> there were a couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining
> the needed level of activity between annual meetings has always
> been an issue. However, a significant point to note is the TAG is
> not involved in the standards ratification process.
>
>
>
> The TDWG standards ratification process is described at
> http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/. The main actor in the
> process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive Committee,
> who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public
> reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive
> Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the
> Review Manager.
>
>
>
> The process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear
> and needs more documentation. There was some opinion early on that
> standards should only be replaced, not revised. In practice,
> there have been a few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive
> Committee in recent years and as I recall the proposals for those
> revisions were submitted by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group
> convenor, directly to the Executive Committee after a period of
> public comment. In John's proposals the DwC issue tracker was
> used to reference the proposed revisions along with some
> summarization from John and the revisions were discussed/decided
> at Exec meetings at the annual conferences.
>
>
>
> The volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a
> high tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to
> enable some focused attention, at least for a while.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> <mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org>
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Guralnick
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM
> *To:* Steve Baskauf
> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an
> annual vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email
> for the next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve
> are important and I do have some quick comments, separated by
> topic (one on term issues and one on governance).
>
>
> 1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism
> addition and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I
> think this reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see
> the Darwin Core as really about biocollections and material
> samples or observations, making the specification of "individuals"
> or "organisms" less a compelling need. I feel that
> "individual/organism" is actually fraught with a fair amount of
> peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really deal with are
> samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally within
> the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then
> (road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.
>
>
>
> 2) Steve has a very good point about TAG and decision making.
> The larger question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few
> of us have agreed to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC
> integration (John Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a
> couple others) --- we haven't always come through but setting
> aside the time is important and useful. Why not reconstitute the
> TAG or at least a subgroup and bring BCO/DwC kinds of activities
> together more firmly. We could open those meetings more broadly
> to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while also keeping our
> eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real opportunity here
> (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of work, in the
> context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network) framework.
> We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us the
> chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is
> interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this
> happen.
>
>
>
> Best, Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf
> <steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
> <mailto:steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.
>
> To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed
> should be
> handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If
> I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in
> sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing
> terms
> (like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms"
> (section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like
> dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term
> declarations
> to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact
> procedure
> in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning
> Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the
> proposal
> and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments
> (RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John
> Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call
> for a
> 30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge.
> I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by
> the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final
> call
> since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.
>
> I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal.
> The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of
> consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be
> widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core
> workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in
> December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the
> actual
> proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about
> everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual).
> So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public
> comment months ago.
>
> The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished
> for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having
> been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I
> haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be
> revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of
> progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on
> that as
> well.
>
> The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance
> process is
> broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG
> technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any
> future
> ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last
> TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was
> my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the
> Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I
> haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on
> this
> front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not
> sure
> anymore.
>
> Steve
>
> [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges
> [2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the
> dwctype:
> namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate
> [3] https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf
> [4] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246 plus several in-person meetings
> at TDWG
>
>
> joel sachs wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Joel,
> >> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?
> >
> > Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the
> process
> > for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the
> Issue
> > Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by
> > the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for ratification.
> > So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to
> > ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want
> to see
> > our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the
> radar, and
> > so thought it made sense to inform the list.
> >
> >> To elicit further
> >> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?
> >>
> >> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If
> that is
> >> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for discussion.
> >
> > I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer
> not to
> > lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the
> > proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to
> > deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The
> > category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of
> the dwc
> > classes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Joel.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs
> <jsachs at csee.umbc.edu <mailto:jsachs at csee.umbc.edu>>
> >> wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> I'd like to direct everyone's attention to issues 204 -
> 226 in
> >> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe
> >> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were
> entered
> >> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin Core
> >> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what the
> >> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus
> that was
> >> reached during the workshop's four sessions in Florence.
> >>
> >> The background for this is that, for some time, a number of
> >> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability
> statement to
> >> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using RDF. In
> >> the course of this work, it became apparent that the
> semantics
> >> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order
> to be
> >> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be
> >> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define
> terms in a
> >> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin Core
> >> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic grounding
> >> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for the
> >> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the
> contrary,
> >> please share them.
> >>
> >> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals
> in Issue
> >> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of
> a class
> >> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are
> >> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was contentious,
> >> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the class.
> >> ("We" refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on
> translating the
> >> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John
> >> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim
> >> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor
> >> Hagedorn, and myself.) I've mentioned my own concerns as a
> >> comment on that issue.
> >>
> >> There is one proposal that had the support of the group, but
> >> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the
> deprecation
> >> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal is
> that
> >> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and inconsistently
> >> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses
> >> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed)
> >> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on proposing
> >> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues
> regarding
> >> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future
> work,
> >> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.
> >>
> >> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and
> to all
> >> who take the time to review its outcomes.
> >>
> >> Joel.
> >>
> >> 1. https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list ["ID" ->
> >> "Sort Down" to see in order]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tdwg-content mailing list
> >> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>
> postal mail address:
> PMB 351634
> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
>
> delivery address:
> 2125 Stevenson Center
> 1161 21st Ave., S.
> Nashville, TN 37235
>
> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
> phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615)
> 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942>
> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
> http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>
> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>
>
>
> postal mail address:
>
> PMB 351634
>
> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
>
>
>
> delivery address:
>
> 2125 Stevenson Center
>
> 1161 21st Ave., S.
>
> Nashville, TN 37235
>
>
>
> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>
> phone: (615) 343-4582 <tel:%28615%29%20343-4582>, fax: (615) 322-4942 <tel:%28615%29%20322-4942>
>
> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
>
> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>
> http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20140725/1d74f61b/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list