September 2014 - tdwg-content

Re: [tdwg-content] If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class
by Nico Franz 05 Jun '25

05 Jun '25

Hello all: I have a few inserted comments, hopefully with some clarifying effect: On 5/4/2011 10:54 AM, Peter DeVries wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I may have overloaded the term specimen to make the explanation easier > to follow. > > A specimen could be an individual or it could be part of an individual. > > To some extent you need to think about how these models will be used. > > If you subscribe to the model that a species is whatever a taxonomists > says it is then it is difficult to make statements like. > > X% of the world's species will be extinct by 2050. > > If you mean a species as defined by the concept documented at this URI > which is supported by these specimens, images, and DNA then you are on > firmer ground. > > Species in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those > individuals that are appropriate mates. In other words members of > their own species. > > Are we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of > species? > >> Assuming that there was only one individual organism identified >> there is really one one species (or hybrid). > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Please Nico C., don't take this one up! > > > I stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That > individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what > species it is a human issue. > > Again, Are we modeling species or variations in human > conceptualizations of species? NMF: I believe there is a history of biodiversity database engineering that actually led some people, initially in Australia (Greg Whitbread?) and Europe (Berendsohn's group) to place more emphasis on modeling human conceptualizations of taxa. I understand this happened in the late 80s / early 90s. The motivation was, apparently, that no long-term consensus seemed available to model a single and sufficiently widely accepted taxonomy of, say, Central European vascular plant species or mosses. I believe that projects such as the Euro + Med PlantBase (http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html) are examples of the persistence (success?) of this 20+ year old practice. I think this is the kind of background that Steve is referring to. > > Which of these is of primary importance to decision makers and > non-taxonomist biologists? > Part of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies > and taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific > phylogenetic hypothesis. > > In the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make > them out to be. > > Each individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene > lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths. > > I would argue that most of those who work with species related data > see them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the > biological species model. NMF: The solution of how to properly model things such as species in RDF, OWL (etc.) should ideally accommodate all "species concepts" (BCS, ESC, PSC, GSC, there's dozens), i.e. it should be neutral towards this issue. The examples below are too simple, ignoring for example cases such as pro parte synonymy, or a concept ("species") that appears unique and monophyletic to one author but (vastly) polyphyletic to another. To do an accurate mapping in that latter case (which is not super-common but it's real), I think one would have to come down on saying we're modeling human conceptualizations. They are not just that, so really it's not a strict dichotomy, meaning that by modeling conceptualizations we do not have to say "the species only exist on our heads", or "well, then anything goes". I agree (sheepishly) that it does come down to what the input data look like, and what the expectations are towards just accommodating the user community versus pushing them in a particular direction. Some of this also on p. 47 of this PDF: https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/jbi/article/view/3927/3852 > > /Aedes triseriatus/ owl:sameAs /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > > Others seem to see them as phylogenetic end nodes which entail a > specific phylogenetic history. > > /Aedes triseriatus/ distinctFrom /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > / > / > If you are primarily interested in understanding issues of ecology, > disease, diversity and conservation the former model is more > appropriate than the later. > > Respectfully, > > - Pete Regards, Nico Nico M. Franz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director, UPRM Invertebrate Collection Department of Biology University of Puerto Rico Call Box 9000 Mayagüez, PR 00681-9000 Phone: (787) 832-4040, ext. 3005 Fax: (787) 834-3673 E-mail: nico.franz(a)upr.edu Laboratory website: http://academic.uprm.edu/~franz/ UPRM-INVCOL: http://uprm-invcol-project.tumblr.com/

3 2

Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] another poke about Audubon Core status
by Tim Robertson 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Hi Dan, Thanks for your offer. As far as I recall, the TDWG executive decided at the last meeting to move onto a whole new platform and put contractor money aside to make it happen. I’m reluctant to point you at the tangled mess of the current system when I suspect it is to be replaced anyway. It really is a convoluted mess of Typo3 plugins, which try and keep a bunch of backend systems in sync and dues to bugs in there it does not work as expected. I really don’t think it is something you want to get into, but I sympathise that the TDWG site is broken and no-one is maintaining it… a simpler vanilla CMS solution that even requires more manual text editing etc. will be a far more manageable solution in my opinion. @TDWG Executive folks - is it still the intention to contract out and do a basic CMS site? If not, I’ll try and pull up the code but I’d need your approval to get him a DB dump as it holds user credentials / subscriptions etc. Please can you advise us? Anything we can do to help? Thanks, Tim On 19 Sep 2014, at 23:05, Stoner, Dan <dstoner(a)acis.ufl.edu> wrote: > I see in the tdwg-tag mailing list archives that the status of the Audubon Core Standard has been discussed recently: > > http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/2014-June/002558.html > > > So consider this another poke about getting the web site updated with the official status of the Standard. > > If there is anything I can do to facilitate the web site update, please let me know (as in, I am volunteering to hack code or whatever is needed). > > > Thanks, > > Dan Stoner > iDigBio / ACIS Laboratory > University of Florida > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-tag mailing list > tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag >

12 14

Comments on Darwin Core Issue 205 (the proposed Organism term)
by joel sachs 18 Sep '14

18 Sep '14

Everyone, I'd like to comment on the proposed addition to Darwin Core of an "organism" class (https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=205) I am one of the submitters of this proposal, but I have some reservations/suggestions/questions about both the definition and the name. Taking them in turn: The Definition The proposed definition is: "A particular organism or defined group of organisms considered to be taxonomically homogeneous. An organism in the sense used here is defined as OBI:0100026 (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0100026) Instances of the Organism class are intended to facilitate linking of one or more Identification instances to one or more Occurrence instances. Therefore, things that are typically assigned scientific names (such as viruses, hybrids, and lichens) and aggregates whose occurrences are typically recorded (such as packs, clones, and colonies) are included in the scope of this class." There are a few things to note here: i. The definition of OBI:0100026 is "A material entity that is an individual living system, such as animal, plant, bacteria or virus, that is capable of replicating or reproducing, growth and maintenance in the right environment. An organism may be unicellular or made up, like humans, of many billions of cells divided into specialized tissues and organs." This definition is not internally consistent, since it delineates organisms as being either unicellular or multi-cellular, while at the same time explicitly including viruses, which are acellular. ii. The reference to OBI:0100026 does not add clarity to the DwC definition, since the DwC definition goes on to include the clarifying aspects of the OBI definition (viruses and lichens are organsims), while leaving out the muddying aspects of the OBI definition (organisms are unicellular or multicellular). The DwC definition also extends the the OBI defintion (to include wolf packs). iii. The rdf definition of OBI:organism inherits axioms from the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). I've long argued that it's a mistake for TDWG to commit to any particular upper ontology, as there is no consensus upper ontology. (Some scientific communities use Dolce, some use SUMO, and many have deliberately chosen to use none at all.) In general, I like the notion of Darwin Core as a glossary of terms, on top of which various data models can be built. When we import terms that carry with them an abundance of ontological commitment, it raises the stakes for those who choose to use TDWG vocabularies. (In contrast, when Darwin Core imported "Location" from Dublin Core, it did so at no cost, since Dublin Core is not tied to any particular upper world-view.) The Name There have been multiple debates about a good name for this class, and there was never consensus. (In addition to "Organism", candidates included "Individual", "OrganismalIndividual", "TaxonIndividualOrGroup", "OrganismOrTaxonomicallyHomogenousGroupOfOrganisms", "OccurringThing".) I agree that we're unlikely to agree on a consensus name, but I question why we need a name at all. Although TDWG has traditionally used transparent identifiers for terms, this has been by convention, and is not a requirement. Is it time to test the "opaque identifier" waters? Are there potential problems with having a mix of transparent and opaque identifiers in our vocabularies? If not, could we call this class dwc:12345? Should we? Thoughts on any of the above? Many thanks, Joel.

7 11

Re: [tdwg-content] proposed news terms for expressing sample data
by Simon.Cox＠csiro.au 04 Sep '14

04 Sep '14

> clear need to distinguish betweendistinguish between processes that generate a specimen as an output (a material entity) and those that instead generate only information or data (what we call an information content entity). Absolutely. O&M has two distinct "Process" classes - one used in observations to generate results, and one used to transform specimens. I also have resisted all suggestions that these be merged, since, despite them both being 'processes', the type of output is critically different! Somehow the wires got crossed in this conversation and it appears the wrong impression has been received. Not sure how that happened. Simon Cox | Research Scientist CSIRO Land and Water PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia Tel +61 3 9252 6342 | Mob +61 403 302 672 simon.cox(a)csiro.au | http://csiro.au/people/SimonCox ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:54:06 -0700 From: Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample data To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CAJYF1k5k=AMKQgK1a7eZ7nyLZtoD+DDcgdFJYoCxm7o=yZy=bA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Simon, It is an interesting perspective to say that "the only real reason to collect and curate a specimen is to support observations". Although I don't disagree, this does depend on a very broad sense definition "observation". In the BCO, following OBI, we define the process of specimen collection as contingent on the material collected potentially being used for some current or future investigation. I don't think it is much of a stretch to see the overlap between "use in some investigation" and "support observations", so I don't think we are at odds here. Nonetheless, as Rob mentioned, there is a clear need (for data tracking purposes) to distinguish between processes that generate a specimen as an output (a material entity) and those that instead generate only information or data (what we call an information content entity). We should probably start a new email thread if we want to continue this discussion on the TDWG list, but I am glad we got your input on this and hope we can continue to coordinate. Ramona ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4
by Simon.Cox＠csiro.au 03 Sep '14

03 Sep '14

OK - There were actually two points hidden in my email. The first (relationship of sampling and observations) was really just a throwaway. Probably shouldn't have even gone there in the context of this conversation. But please note that sampling and observations are very very clearly separated in O&M (as is the feature-of-interest from an observation (the former is usually a sample), and as is the notion of 'result' from 'observation' (the latter being an action or event which generates the former)). These are the key features of the O&M model, the development of which was triggered by conversations where these things were confused. O&M was written up as an attempt to disentangle things (it is rooted in earlier "patterns" work from Fowler and O'Dea). Please don't surmise what might be said in O&M without taking a look - there is no conflation. (The perversity I referred to is rather that a model for sampling could be established without describing the relationship with observations, but I was being a smart-aleck and probably shouldn't have even mentioned it. In O&M there is merely a loose link between them, in that a SamplingFeature has an (optional) property 'relatedObservation' to link a sample to observations made on it. ) The second point is that, in the fields where I have experience, the key sampling metadata relates to provenance. Since there is now a standard ontology for provenance, maybe a sample model can be derived from this. Hence sam:Specimen rdfs:subClassOf prov:Entity , sam:SamplingFeature . Simon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:41:50 -0600 From: Robert Guralnick <Robert.Guralnick(a)colorado.edu> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample data To: Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org>, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> Message-ID: <CADAgxGWFmcKgEfYhfQ6u9=7gEzRgSSDdguaaOiPVcwK=ftwz=g(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Simon --- Perhaps your email also illustrates Ramona's point about the complexity of the landscape right now when it comes to the _details_ of how we might model samples, and sampling processes. Darwin Core recently added a materialSample term, that was a refinement of OBI's "specimen" ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0100051) and with a description: "A resource describing the physical results of a sampling (or subsampling) event. In biological collections, the material sample is typically collected, and either preserved or destructively processed" ( http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwctype/MaterialSample) Maybe what you and what others are developing are equivalent expressions and perhaps they are not, but my initial reaction was that separating specimens and observations is a remarkably important and clarifying idea, and not perverse at all. I think the difference is that what you might call an observation is what the Biocollections Ontology community would refer to as a "sampling process" and what we call an "observation" is more related to some documentation of a "thing" in nature. I say this recognizing that others, even those working on the Biocollections Ontology or Darwin Core, may have radically different notions of those same concepts. I hope not, but this is not simple to model. What I would like to see is some clarity among those putting in all this effort to do so more strategically, with bridges built across efforts and locations. Best, Rob On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:31 PM, <Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au> wrote: > Hi Ramona - > > I understand your concern, though I would counterpoint that the only > real reason to collect and curate a specimen is to support > observations, either contemporaneously or at some future time. > So it could be seen as slightly perverse to suggest that a model for > specimens and samples could be divorced from the notion of observations. > > FWIW I'm right now trying to develop a simplified SamplingFeatures > ontology, still conceptually based on the ISO 19156 model, but with no > commitments to marginal ontologies (i.e. lift it out of the ISO 19100 > ghetto). This has led me to consider re-use of more standard ontologies. > W3C Prov-O is interesting. Since a lot of the information that you > would want to record about a specimen concerns its provenance, then it > probably makes sense to align with prov. Currently I have > > sam:Specimen a owl:Class ; > rdfs:comment "A Specimen is a physical sample, obtained for > observation(s) normally carried out ex-situ, sometimes in a > laboratory."^^xsd:string ; > rdfs:label "Specimen"@en ; > rdfs:subClassOf prov:Entity , sam:SamplingFeature ; > rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; > owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ; > owl:onProperty sam:samplingTime > ] . > > Simon >

1 0

Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample data
by Ramona Walls 03 Sep '14

03 Sep '14

Simon, It is an interesting perspective to say that "the only real reason to collect and curate a specimen is to support observations". Although I don't disagree, this does depend on a very broad sense definition "observation". In the BCO, following OBI, we define the process of specimen collection as contingent on the material collected potentially being used for some current or future investigation. I don't think it is much of a stretch to see the overlap between "use in some investigation" and "support observations", so I don't think we are at odds here. Nonetheless, as Rob mentioned, there is a clear need (for data tracking purposes) to distinguish between processes that generate a specimen as an output (a material entity) and those that instead generate only information or data (what we call an information content entity). We should probably start a new email thread if we want to continue this discussion on the TDWG list, but I am glad we got your input on this and hope we can continue to coordinate. Ramona ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org> wrote: > Send tdwg-content mailing list submissions to > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tdwg-content-owner(a)lists.tdwg.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample > data (Robert Guralnick) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:41:50 -0600 > From: Robert Guralnick <Robert.Guralnick(a)colorado.edu> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for > expressing sample data > To: Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au > Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org>, Ramona > Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> > Message-ID: > <CADAgxGWFmcKgEfYhfQ6u9=7gEzRgSSDdguaaOiPVcwK=ftwz= > g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Simon --- Perhaps your email also illustrates Ramona's point about the > complexity of the landscape right now when it comes to the _details_ of how > we might model samples, and sampling processes. Darwin Core recently > added a materialSample term, that was a refinement of OBI's "specimen" ( > http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0100051) and with a description: "A > resource describing the physical results of a sampling (or subsampling) > event. In biological collections, the material sample is typically > collected, and either preserved or destructively processed" ( > http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwctype/MaterialSample) > > Maybe what you and what others are developing are equivalent expressions > and perhaps they are not, but my initial reaction was that separating > specimens and observations is a remarkably important and clarifying idea, > and not perverse at all. I think the difference is that what you might > call an observation is what the Biocollections Ontology community would > refer to as a "sampling process" and what we call an "observation" is more > related to some documentation of a "thing" in nature. > > I say this recognizing that others, even those working on the > Biocollections Ontology or Darwin Core, may have radically different > notions of those same concepts. I hope not, but this is not simple to > model. What I would like to see is some clarity among those putting in all > this effort to do so more strategically, with bridges built across efforts > and locations. > > Best, Rob > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:31 PM, <Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au> wrote: > > > Hi Ramona - > > > > I understand your concern, though I would counterpoint that the only real > > reason to collect and curate a specimen is to support observations, > either > > contemporaneously or at some future time. > > So it could be seen as slightly perverse to suggest that a model for > > specimens and samples could be divorced from the notion of observations. > > > > FWIW I'm right now trying to develop a simplified SamplingFeatures > > ontology, still conceptually based on the ISO 19156 model, but with no > > commitments to marginal ontologies (i.e. lift it out of the ISO 19100 > > ghetto). This has led me to consider re-use of more standard ontologies. > > W3C Prov-O is interesting. Since a lot of the information that you would > > want to record about a specimen concerns its provenance, then it probably > > makes sense to align with prov. Currently I have > > > > sam:Specimen a owl:Class ; > > rdfs:comment "A Specimen is a physical sample, obtained for > > observation(s) normally carried out ex-situ, sometimes in a > > laboratory."^^xsd:string ; > > rdfs:label "Specimen"@en ; > > rdfs:subClassOf prov:Entity , sam:SamplingFeature ; > > rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; > > owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger > ; > > owl:onProperty sam:samplingTime > > ] . > > > > Simon > > > > =============== > > Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:38:33 -0700 > > From: Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14 > > To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> > > Message-ID: > > <CAJYF1k6wcwPWtUt6ZHr8OgEcBJVYHUq0jiYc0hqEJeMY_kQ= > > 1A(a)mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Thank you, Simon, for that explanation and the links. They were very > > helpful. Amen to the point: "There is no ?sample? class, because it is > such > > an overloaded word (noun, verb, statistical sample vs ex-situ sample, > > etc)." The documents you shared highlight the very important point that > OGC > > and OBO-E were designed specifically to describe observations. > > > > Darwin Core, on the other hand, was designed to capture information about > > "taxa, their occurrence in nature as documented by observations, > specimens, > > samples, and related information" [1]. As such, observations are not > > central to Darwin Core, but rather are included as evidence of the > > occurrence of a taxon in nature. It works for communicating basic > > information about an observation or other evidence of a taxon's > occurrence, > > but I think it would be mis-using and abusing DwC to try to shoe-horn the > > complexity of observation data/metadata into it. It also does some > > dis-service to the communities who have spent so much time developing OGC > > and OBO-E. > > > > Eamonn, this is not meant to discredit the work that you and your > > colleagues have done to develop a DwC archive schema for sampling data. I > > think it is an important step toward developing a comprehensive framework > > for biodiversity data, and just by proposing it, we have moved a step in > > the right direction (even if I disagree about adopting it). Your point > that > > OBO-E is far more complex is true, and we may have to adopt more terms if > > we accurately want to describe observation data in DwC. On the other > hand, > > we do not need to necessarily adopt every aspect of OBO-E to exchange > > observation data. > > > > What the BCO participants -- and thanks to all the GBIF people who have > > participated! -- are trying to do is build a framework that can work > across > > many (not necessarily all) types of biodiversity data, including specimen > > collection and observations, while considering existing efforts such as > > DwC, MIxS, OBO-E, and OBO Foundry ontologies. We started with specimens, > > but the intention has always been to link to observation data as well > [2]. > > Although the full BCO model probably will be large and complex, we fully > > intend to offer views that are basically subsets of the ontology filtered > > for applications. This is regular practice now in application ontologies. > > Views makes it possible to provide a controlled vocabulary for data > > annotation without burdening annotators with a confusing array of terms > and > > logical definitions. > > > > However, the point that BCO is not yet ready for your needs is correct, > and > > I would never tell anyone to just "hold on to your data until the > ontology > > is ready". Did you examine the possibility of using EML as an exchange > > format for the sampling/survey related data? DwC-A already has an EML > > component, so I wonder if some combination of an occurrence core with an > > extended EML document (based on OGC) would work. > > > > Ramona > > > > > > > > [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm > > [2] > > > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089606 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. > > Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona > > Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona > > Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tdwg-content mailing list > > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > > >

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14
by Ramona Walls 03 Sep '14

03 Sep '14

Thank you, Simon, for that explanation and the links. They were very helpful. Amen to the point: "There is no ?sample? class, because it is such an overloaded word (noun, verb, statistical sample vs ex-situ sample, etc)." The documents you shared highlight the very important point that OGC and OBO-E were designed specifically to describe observations. Darwin Core, on the other hand, was designed to capture information about "taxa, their occurrence in nature as documented by observations, specimens, samples, and related information" [1]. As such, observations are not central to Darwin Core, but rather are included as evidence of the occurrence of a taxon in nature. It works for communicating basic information about an observation or other evidence of a taxon's occurrence, but I think it would be mis-using and abusing DwC to try to shoe-horn the complexity of observation data/metadata into it. It also does some dis-service to the communities who have spent so much time developing OGC and OBO-E. Eamonn, this is not meant to discredit the work that you and your colleagues have done to develop a DwC archive schema for sampling data. I think it is an important step toward developing a comprehensive framework for biodiversity data, and just by proposing it, we have moved a step in the right direction (even if I disagree about adopting it). Your point that OBO-E is far more complex is true, and we may have to adopt more terms if we accurately want to describe observation data in DwC. On the other hand, we do not need to necessarily adopt every aspect of OBO-E to exchange observation data. What the BCO participants -- and thanks to all the GBIF people who have participated! -- are trying to do is build a framework that can work across many (not necessarily all) types of biodiversity data, including specimen collection and observations, while considering existing efforts such as DwC, MIxS, OBO-E, and OBO Foundry ontologies. We started with specimens, but the intention has always been to link to observation data as well [2]. Although the full BCO model probably will be large and complex, we fully intend to offer views that are basically subsets of the ontology filtered for applications. This is regular practice now in application ontologies. Views makes it possible to provide a controlled vocabulary for data annotation without burdening annotators with a confusing array of terms and logical definitions. However, the point that BCO is not yet ready for your needs is correct, and I would never tell anyone to just "hold on to your data until the ontology is ready". Did you examine the possibility of using EML as an exchange format for the sampling/survey related data? DwC-A already has an EML component, so I wonder if some combination of an occurrence core with an extended EML document (based on OGC) would work. Ramona [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm [2] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089606 ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org> wrote: > Send tdwg-content mailing list submissions to > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tdwg-content-owner(a)lists.tdwg.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample > data (Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au) > 2. Re: tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6 (sigh) (?amonn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:58:14 +0000 > From: <Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for > expressing sample data > To: <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> > Message-ID: > < > 2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A5FFF5801(a)exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > G?day again TDWGers: > > Matt passed on links to this thread to me and suggested I comment, as I > was the author of the O&M standard (published as ISO 19156:2011 and OGC > Abstract Spec Topic 20). > > For those who are not aware of this work, there is a short Wikipedia page > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_Measurements whose main > value is it has links to a number of more detailed resources. > Probably the richest of these is another Wiki page at CSIRO > https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/wiki/AppSchemas/ObservationsAndSampling > which hasn?t been updated much recently, but at least has some diagrams > embedded. > As Matt and others have hinted, as a result of a workshop at NCEAS a few > years ago, there were some tweaks to allow it to meet some of the > requirements identified in OBOE, just in time to beat the ISO deadline! > > O&M includes a generic model for ?Sampling Features? ? being those > artefacts that are created to assist the observation process, but would not > exist and have very much interest otherwise. > Things like specimens, transects, sections, quadrats, scenes and swaths, > drillholes, flightlines, trajectories, ships tracks, etc. > Because it is a generic standard, you won?t find things with names > familiar to any particular discipline, and there are a lot of stub classes > for supporting information which need filling out for specific applications. > But the intention is that it provides a framework for a discipline or > community to specialize for their purposes, while retaining some topology > and perhaps terminology (maybe just as super-classes) that help with > information sharing across discipline boundaries. > The main properties of a sampling feature are > > - The sampledFeature ? being the domain object which it is being > used to characterize > > - Related sampling features ? other features related to the > observational strategy > > - Related observations ? observation events that use this > sampling feature (for which another generic model is provided) > We?ve generally found it helpful in teasing apart observational records > and protocols in a variety of environmental science applications, and other > have applied it in oceans, meteorology, even air-traffic control! > > The primary classification of sampling features in O&M is by topological > dimension (point, curve, surface, solid), because these are commonly used > and afford common processing methods. > ?Specimen? is the other concrete sampling-feature type. > There is no ?sample? class, because it is such an overloaded word (noun, > verb, statistical sample vs ex-situ sample, etc). > > O&M and its Sampling Feature model was designed in UML. > As Matt notes that the original implementation in the OGC context was in > XML, using GML > http://schemas.opengis.net/samplingSpecimen/2.0/specimen.xsd and > http://schemas.opengis.net/samplingSpatial/2.0/spatialSamplingFeature.xsd > . > However, it has been implemented other ways: there is an OWL2/RDFS > representation at > http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/isotc211/iso19156/2011/sampling which is > linked in with OWL versions of a bunch of the other ISO standards, and > therefore probably makes too many commitments for the faint hearted ? see > paper from ISWC 2013 here http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1063/paper1.pdf > O&M was also one of the core inputs to the W3C Semantic Sensor Network > ontology, reported here: > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Incubator_Report though that > focussed on the sensors and observations side of the equation, and hardly > deals with sampling. > > Hope this helps. > > >> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:52:06 -0800 > >> From: Matt Jones <jones(a)nceas.ucsb.edu<mailto:jones@nceas.ucsb.edu>> > >> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for > >> expressing sample data > >> To: ?amonn ? Tuama [GBIF] <eotuama(a)gbif.org<mailto:eotuama@gbif.org>> > >> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org<mailto: > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org>> > >> Message-ID: > >> > <CAFSW8xkx7uRP9PC2g3=JT_VJanqujH8nPXoz8GXwh+JwKw5Ccw(a)mail.gmail.com > <mailto:JT_VJanqujH8nPXoz8GXwh%2BJwKw5Ccw@mail.gmail.com>> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> This proposal is treading on ground that is quite similar to other > >> observations and measurements standards for data exchange that are > already > >> mature, in particular: > >> > >> * OGC Observations and Measurements ( > >> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/om) > >> * Extensible Observation Ontology (OBOE; > >> https://semtools.ecoinformatics.org/oboe) > >> > >> The former is a standard and broadly deployed, whereas the latter is > part > >> of a research program in the use of ontologies for measurements. > Through > >> collaboration between the two projects, they've been modified to be > >> reasonably isomorphic, but O&M uses an XML serialization while OBOE uses > an > >> OWL-DL serialization. They largely express the same measurements and > >> sampling model once one gets beyond the terminology differences. > >> > >> So, I'm wondering if it make much sense to extend Darwin Core, which is > at > >> heart an Occurrence exchange syntax, into this measurements area that is > >> well represented by these other existing specifications? I'm curious to > >> hear why people would even want to do this. And if we do go down this > >> path, won't we just end up with a new syntax that does essentially what > O&M > >> and OBOE do now? > >> > >> Matt > > >

2 2

Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core: proposed news terms for expressing sample data
by Simon.Cox＠csiro.au 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Hi Ramona - I understand your concern, though I would counterpoint that the only real reason to collect and curate a specimen is to support observations, either contemporaneously or at some future time. So it could be seen as slightly perverse to suggest that a model for specimens and samples could be divorced from the notion of observations. FWIW I'm right now trying to develop a simplified SamplingFeatures ontology, still conceptually based on the ISO 19156 model, but with no commitments to marginal ontologies (i.e. lift it out of the ISO 19100 ghetto). This has led me to consider re-use of more standard ontologies. W3C Prov-O is interesting. Since a lot of the information that you would want to record about a specimen concerns its provenance, then it probably makes sense to align with prov. Currently I have sam:Specimen a owl:Class ; rdfs:comment "A Specimen is a physical sample, obtained for observation(s) normally carried out ex-situ, sometimes in a laboratory."^^xsd:string ; rdfs:label "Specimen"@en ; rdfs:subClassOf prov:Entity , sam:SamplingFeature ; rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ; owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ; owl:onProperty sam:samplingTime ] . Simon =============== Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:38:33 -0700 From: Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14 To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org> Message-ID: <CAJYF1k6wcwPWtUt6ZHr8OgEcBJVYHUq0jiYc0hqEJeMY_kQ=1A(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thank you, Simon, for that explanation and the links. They were very helpful. Amen to the point: "There is no ?sample? class, because it is such an overloaded word (noun, verb, statistical sample vs ex-situ sample, etc)." The documents you shared highlight the very important point that OGC and OBO-E were designed specifically to describe observations. Darwin Core, on the other hand, was designed to capture information about "taxa, their occurrence in nature as documented by observations, specimens, samples, and related information" [1]. As such, observations are not central to Darwin Core, but rather are included as evidence of the occurrence of a taxon in nature. It works for communicating basic information about an observation or other evidence of a taxon's occurrence, but I think it would be mis-using and abusing DwC to try to shoe-horn the complexity of observation data/metadata into it. It also does some dis-service to the communities who have spent so much time developing OGC and OBO-E. Eamonn, this is not meant to discredit the work that you and your colleagues have done to develop a DwC archive schema for sampling data. I think it is an important step toward developing a comprehensive framework for biodiversity data, and just by proposing it, we have moved a step in the right direction (even if I disagree about adopting it). Your point that OBO-E is far more complex is true, and we may have to adopt more terms if we accurately want to describe observation data in DwC. On the other hand, we do not need to necessarily adopt every aspect of OBO-E to exchange observation data. What the BCO participants -- and thanks to all the GBIF people who have participated! -- are trying to do is build a framework that can work across many (not necessarily all) types of biodiversity data, including specimen collection and observations, while considering existing efforts such as DwC, MIxS, OBO-E, and OBO Foundry ontologies. We started with specimens, but the intention has always been to link to observation data as well [2]. Although the full BCO model probably will be large and complex, we fully intend to offer views that are basically subsets of the ontology filtered for applications. This is regular practice now in application ontologies. Views makes it possible to provide a controlled vocabulary for data annotation without burdening annotators with a confusing array of terms and logical definitions. However, the point that BCO is not yet ready for your needs is correct, and I would never tell anyone to just "hold on to your data until the ontology is ready". Did you examine the possibility of using EML as an exchange format for the sampling/survey related data? DwC-A already has an EML component, so I wonder if some combination of an occurrence core with an extended EML document (based on OGC) would work. Ramona [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm [2] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089606 ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

2 1

Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 15
by Ramona Walls 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Hi Markus, Much of the "muddle" that I was referring to has been exposed in a series of recent hackathons (to which we have tried to always invite someone from GBIF), and has not yet been published, although [1,2,3] touch on the issue. I will try to describe some of the problems we have encountered here. For those of you who are tired of this thread already, the short answer is that the problem lies in the lack of underlying clarity and semantics in Darwin Core, not DwC-A. I think Darwin Core archives do a pretty good job of capturing the content of Darwin Core terminology, but as those terms are often (sometime intentionally) ambiguous and imprecise, those aspects are captured too. Below are a few of the specific issues. I don't think much of this will be new to the readers of this list. 1. Ambiguously defined classes: Darwin Core only has a handful of classes (Occurence, Event. Location, etc.), and those are intended to be used as grouping classes, rather than strictly defined entities. Therefore, if someone uses the corresponding properties (OccurenceID, EvenID, LocationID), they are more or less free to attach those IDs to whatever they want. In many cases, the type of entity referred to by OccurenceID can be inferred from the object of basisOfRecord, but not always, and it is still an inference with some error. *IF* DwC does go in the direction of capturing sample/survey data, one thing that would help would be to have it specified via a set of controlled vocabulary terms in basisOfRecord. I won't even start with Taxon. 2. Domain- and range-less properties: DwC properties (the bulk of the terms in DwC) are intentionally left without domains and ranges to make them maximally re-usable. For traditional museum specimen data, this works reasonably well, and the intended meaning is often clear. We recently completed the exercise of specifying domains and ranges for the whole DwC vocabulary, as interpreted for an Occurence Core archive, and found that many of them do not refer to DwC classes as their domain. This makes in impossible to infer their meaning without a set of external assumptions. Our interpreted ranges of DwC properties are a mix of data values (literals) and potential classes in other ontologies. {I will share this mapping on request - it is still under review}. The proposed properties also have no domains or ranges. For example, the suggested range of 'quantity type' is a heterogeneous mix of entities (individuals, biomass, %species, scale type) that sets off a huge red flag to my ontological self. And what about the domain of 'quantity type' and 'quantity'? As they are in the Occurence extension table, they probably are meant to describe whatever is represented by occurenceID, but this is not specified. Vague domains and ranges may work for simple sampling schemas that could be interpreted as "taxon W (value of occurenceID) has quantity X (value of quantity) with unit Y (value of samplingUnit) of quantity type Z (value of quantityType)", but even then it is likely to be ambiguous. Now suppose W=123someID (with taxonName as Bufo bufo), X=9, Y=individuals, and Z is left blank, because that is just what people do sometimes. Let's be generous and suppose that there is also some sampling geometry and location information. How to interpret this? Does this mean that there is a jar in a museum with 9 toads in it, all of which came form a single collecting event at that location? Does it mean that there was a survey done of a the location described, and 9 toads were counted but not collected? Does it mean that they surveyed the area and estimated toad abundace at 9 toads m^-2? Even if they are conscientious and put in m^2 as the sampling unit, the meaning is still unclear. Did they measure an area of 1 m2 and find 9 toads or an area of 90 m2 and find 90 toads or did measure an area of 90 m2 and find 9 toads? All of these would be valid interpretations. Of course, many sampling schemas are much more complex with this, with nested sampling protocols or repeat sampling of the same area. There is just no way to capture that without more semantics the DwC can provide. 3. Using the wrong property for information: Even if the larger community interprets a DwC property with some certainty, that doesn't stop people from using it wrong. This is often not the fault of DwC or DwC archives, if people don't take the time to make sure they are filling out the fields properly. Even with very clearly defined ontology terms, some curators just don't take the time to read an understand the definitions. However, the ambiguity and vagueness of DwC terms surely contributes to this. ----- I think that sampling or survey data is just to structured to describe well with a flat schema like DwC. That is why most of it to date has been stored in relational databases. To repeat myself, I think it would make more sense to first develop a sound semantic model for the data then extract a Darwin Core archive format for transmitting it, rather than build the DwC archive first and later try to map it to a semantic model. Ramona [1] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/15/257 [2] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089606 [3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746421/ ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org> wrote: > Send tdwg-content mailing list submissions to > tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tdwg-content-request(a)lists.tdwg.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tdwg-content-owner(a)lists.tdwg.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6 (sigh) (Markus D?ring) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:02:40 +0200 > From: Markus D?ring <m.doering(a)mac.com> > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6 > (sigh) > To: Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> > Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org>, John Deck > <jdeck(a)berkeley.edu> > Message-ID: <A6B43FE0-A595-4526-BD13-EE196D950435(a)mac.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear Ramona, > > could you point me to the evidence for muddled semantic mappings in > existing dwc archives? I would like to better understand the problem. Is it > a general issue with Darwin Core terms and their lose definition or just > their application in dwc archives? > > best, > Markus > > > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 06:35, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I also really do appreciate GBIF's pressing need to serve survey/sample > data, and I don't have a major of a problem with the idea of an Event core > or even adding new terms to DwC (in principle). Rather, I am urging caution > in how we proceed with it. > > > > ?amonn, in response to your statement "Once the BCO model is available > for uptake, it should be possible to develop a mapping between it and the > simple DwC sample model" I will respond: possible, maybe, easy, no way, > unambiguous, probably impossible. The problem I foresee is that once the > "simple DwC sample model" is in place, people will start using it to do all > kinds of not so simple things, and the mapping will become muddled. We have > ample evidence that this is the case with existing Darwin Core archives. > > > > Going back to the five new terms that ?amonn proposed, I would like to > see if we can link them NOW to existing ontology terms (as other have > proposed), thus making their semantics explicit from the start, but still > allowing GBIF/EU-BON to proceed with the work they need to do. This will > not prevent people form misusing terms, but may at least help make mapping > easier later. In cases where the terms can't be mapped to an existing term, > BCO curators would be willing to help develop a term or set of terms that > can convey meaning required, or work with other ontology developers to get > the terms added elsewhere. > > > > Trying to be constructive, I attempted to do a quick and dirty, > preliminary mapping of the five terms (quantity, quantity type, sampling > geometry, sampling unity, and event series ID), bearing in mind that I am > not an authority on OBOE or OGC ontologies. [Aside: Based on what I know, > OGC ontologies are not yet sufficiently developed to provide the semantics > we need, but I would love for someone to show me otherwise.] > > > > A serious problem with mapping these terms to existing ontologies is > that some of them do NOT map to a single ontology term (namely, quantity, > quantity type, and sampling geometry). This is evidence that the proposed > terms could indeed be interpreted in multiple ways and further supports the > argument that it would not be easy to retrospectively add them to a > semantic framework at some later date. > > > > I think there is a path forward that would allow for both the > expressiveness of OBOE and other ontologies and convenience of standard > exchange formats. > > > > Ramona > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. > > Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona > > Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona > > Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Robert Guralnick < > Robert.Guralnick(a)colorado.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi all --- Ok, I think the scope of the issue is quite clear. Let me > summarize: 1) As ?amonn and the rest of GBIF has made quite clear, "GBIF > is faced with the immediate task of making sample-based data discoverable > and accessible using its current ecosystem of tools" given a funding > mandate from EU-BON. 2) The solution for this problem is to develop an > Event-core and to promote new terms to the Darwin Core to make this > happen. I will note a small inconsistency here: the current ecosystem > standards and tools of is Darwin Core (as it stands) and publishing systems > such as IPT. That ecosystem of tools includes mechanisms to extend Darwin > Core where needed, via extensions. The current ecosystem of tools doesn't > include new Cores or new DwC terms, does it? > > > > So this leads in nicely to the contentious issue(s) and places where > there seems to be discussions --- these have to do with the nature of the > changes suggested and the scope of those changes, both in terms of an Event > core and DwC term additions. Leaving aside the Event-core for now, the key > questions simply about term additions to the Darwin Core that seem to be at > heart here are: 1) Is the intent of the Darwin Core to model surveys, > which usually involve multiple kinds and types of sampling over multiple > sites using multiple methods? 2) Is the solution to invent new terms for > the Darwin Core if there are already terms from other efforts, wouldn't we > work with those existing efforts to assure interoperability? > > > > I appreciate the efforts of GBIF here fully, and am personally torn > because on the one hand, I fully agree with the goal of extending Darwin > Core to better represent richer biodiversity data. On the other hand, I > worry about process here and how to make that happen in a way that isn't > too hasty or locks us into just the opposite of what I think many of us > want with regards to sharing data more broadly than within just one > ecosystem of tools. > > > > Best, Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:30 AM, John Deck <jdeck(a)berkeley.edu> wrote: > > I see the rational for enabling this in Darwin Core Archives and adding > the new terms. However, back to what Matt Jones brought up: "won't we just > end up with a new syntax that does essentially what O&M and OBOE do now?". > > > > We should include explicit references to existing terms/definitions that > encapsulate what we're talking about, e.g. in our MaterialSample proposal > last year we linked the an existing term in OBI, which has a much richer > description and context for MaterialSample than what we considered ( > https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=167) > > > > Have we explored the possibility of doing this with OBOE? I'm not > suggesting we adopt OBOE wholesale, but it seems like we have a good > opportunity to enable better semantic linking with that efforts. > > > > John > > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:23 AM, ?amonn ? Tuama [GBIF] <eotuama(a)gbif.org> > wrote: > > Thanks, Ramona and Rob. > > > > I'd like to add a few points following on Markus's reply. > > > > I think your pressing of the need for a robust semantic model for > > biodiversity sample/survey data is incontestable ? we do need one and it > > should enable rich data integration once it is defined and the tools and > > data standards to support it become available. However, GBIF is faced > with > > the immediate task of making sample-based data discoverable and > accessible > > using its current ecosystem of tools (IPT) and exchange standards (DwC; > > EML). Waiting for a functional, implementable semantic model and the > tools > > and support services for it is just not an option for us right now. > > > > We have already spend considerable time in analysing the merits of > > Occurrence core vs Event core and have opted for an Event core for > reasons > > previously given. I don?t believe we are trying to reconfigure Event (?an > > action that occurs at a place and during a period of time?) and > regardless > > of whether we use Occurrence or Event, the need for some additional terms > > arise (e.g., quantity, quantityType, samplingGeometry, samplingUnit). > Once > > the BCO model is available for uptake, it should be possible to develop a > > mapping between it and the simple DwC sample model. > > > > So GBIF?s stance is that we need to take a two-pronged approach by > exploring > > how the IPT and DwC-A can be adapted for publishing sample-based data in > the > > near term while supporting the work of TDWG and groups such as the BCO in > > advancing biodiversity informatics. GBIF has already engaged in the work > of > > the BCO and will continue to do so. > > > > ?amonn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tdwg-content-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org > > [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Markus D?ring > > Sent: 28 August 2014 12:44 > > To: Ramona Walls > > Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6 > > > > Hi Ramona & Rob, > > > > The Event proposal does not try to change the semantics of an Event, it > just > > uses the existing Darwin Core Event "class" at the core in Darwin Core > > archives. The actual change proposed is simply adding 3 new terms to the > > Event "group" to better share information about sampling methods & > efforts, > > extending the existing limited capabilities of Darwin Core which already > has > > the terms dwc:samplingProtocol and dwc:samplingEffort. It also proposes 2 > > new terms for dealing with quantity of Occurrences, something that has > been > > discussed since 2012 now, when I had proposed a new abundance term [2]. > > > > > > In general application of Darwin Core is not at all limited to specimens > and > > observations. It is used for sharing taxonomic datasets already and it's > > definition and goal is broad. Let me cite some of the introduction to > Darwin > > Core [1]: > > > > What is the Darwin Core? > > The Darwin Core is body of standards. It includes a glossary of terms (in > > other contexts these might be called properties, elements, fields, > columns, > > attributes, or concepts) intended to facilitate the sharing of > information > > about biological diversity by providing reference definitions, examples, > and > > commentaries. The Darwin Core is primarily based on taxa, their > occurrence > > in nature as documented by observations, specimens, samples, and related > > information. > > > > Motivation: The Darwin Core standard was originally conceived to > facilitate > > the discovery, retrieval, and integration of information about modern > > biological specimens, their spatiotemporal occurrence, and their > supporting > > evidence housed in collections (physical or digital). The Darwin Core > today > > is broader in scope and more versatile. It is meant to provide a stable > > standard reference for sharing information on biological diversity. As a > > glossary of terms, the Darwin Core is meant to provide stable semantic > > definitions with the goal of being maximally reusable in a variety of > > contexts. > > > > > > Markus > > > > > > [1] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm > > [2] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=142 > > > > > > -- > > Markus D?ring > > Software Developer > > Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) > > mdoering(a)gbif.org > > http://www.gbif.org > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:11 AM, ?amonn ? Tuama [GBIF] < > eotuama(a)gbif.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear All, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> GBIF is committed to exploring ways in which the IPT and Darwin Core > > Archive format can be extended for publishing sample-based data sets. In > > association with the EU BON project [1], a customised version of the IPT > [2] > > has been deployed to test this using a special type of Darwin Core > Archive > > in which the core is an ?Event? with associated taxon occurrences in an > > ?Occurrence? extension. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Darwin Core vocabulary already provides a rich set of terms with > many > > relevant for describing sample-based data. Synthesising several sources > of > > input (GBIF organised workshop on sample data, May 2013 [3], discussions > on > > the TDWG mailing list in late 2013; internal discussion among EU BON > project > > partners), five new terms relating to sample data were identified as > > essential. The complete model including these new terms are fully > described > > with examples in the online document ?Publishing sample data using the > GBIF > > IPT? [4]. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> As a first step towards ratification, we would like to register the > new > > terms in the DwC Google Code tracker [5] if there are no major > objections on > > this list. The five terms are: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 1. quantity: the number or enumeration value of the quantityType > > (e.g., individuals, biomass, biovolume, BraunBlanquetScale) per > samplingUnit > > or a percentage measure recorded for the sample. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2. quantityType: : the entity being referred to by quantity, > e.g., > > individuals, biomass, %species, scale type. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 3. samplingGeometry: an indication of what kind of space was > > sampled; select from point, line, area or volume. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 4. samplingUnit: the unit of measurement used for reporting the > > quantity in the sample, e.g., minute, hour, day, metre, metre^2, metre^3. > > It is combined with quantity and quantityType to provide the complete > > measurement, e.g., 9 individuals per day, 4 biomass-gm per metre^2. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 5. eventSeriesID: an identifier for a set of events that are > > associated in some way, e.g., a monitoring series; may be a global unique > > identifier or an identifier specific to the series. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ?amonn > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] http://eubon.eu <http://eubon.eu/> > > >> > > >> [2] http://eubon-ipt.gbif.org <http://eubon-ipt.gbif.org/> > > >> > > >> [3] > > > http://www.standardsingenomics.org/index.php/sigen/article/view/sigs.4898640 > > >> > > >> [4] <http://links.gbif.org/sample_data_model> > > http://links.gbif.org/sample_data_model > > >> > > >> [5] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________ > > >> > > >> ?amonn ? Tuama, M.Sc., Ph.D. (eotuama(a)gbif.org) > > >> > > >> Senior Programme Officer for Interoperability, > > >> > > >> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat, > > >> > > >> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen ?, DENMARK > > >> > > >> Phone: +45 3532 1494 <tel:%2B45%203532%201494> ; Fax: +45 3532 1480 > > <tel:%2B45%203532%201480> > > > > > End of tdwg-content Digest, Vol 63, Issue 15 > ******************************************** >

1 0

Help with using extensions in IPT
by Niels Klazenga 01 Sep '14

01 Sep '14

Dear all, Not sure if this is appropriate use of this list, but I don't know where else to go. I was hoping I could prevail on someone to help me find out how to use extensions in the IPT provider for data from an SQL database, without creating duplicate rows in the core file or empty rows (apart from the core ID) in the extension file(s). I think I tried everything, but I must be overlooking something. I found this, http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/2013-October/000545.html, during my googling for an answer, which I think has the solution, but I can't work out how to implement it, as my IPT installation doesn't seem to let me create a mapping to just an extension and only lets me use one data mapping source for any resource. Niels ___________________________________________________________ Niels Klazenga Programmer Information Technology, Biodiversity Information Officer National Herbarium of Victoria, Royal Botanic Gardens Birdwood Avenue South Yarra, VIC 3141 Australia Tel: (03) 9252 2346 Fax: (03) 9252 2444 e-mail: niels.klazenga(a)rbg.vic.gov.au -- This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the sender and/or copyright owner. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. This email was Anti Virus checked by Sophos UTM.

2 2