[tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

Thu Feb 5 16:26:12 CET 2015

RDF/SKOS notation makes items like labels, definitions, examples very explicit:

<skos:Concept rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/terms/accessRights">

<skos:historyNote rdf:about="modified" dc:date="2008/01/14"/>

<skos:prefLabel xml:lang="fr">Droits d'accès</skos:prefLabel>

<skos:definition xml:lang="en">Information about who can access the resource ....

<skos:example xml:lang="de">Zugriffsrechte können Informationen ... 

</skos:Concept>

The use of SKOS for describing property terms is discussed on page 4 of the TDWG Vocabulary Management Task Group (VoMaG) report [1]. Does use of SKOS in this context bring any semantic baggage?

Éamonn

[1] http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246

From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
Sent: 05 February 2015 15:35
To: Markus Döring
Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

I thought you would, since you mentioned it independently even before Ramona did. :-)

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Markus Döring <m.doering at mac.com> wrote:

I like that idea, John!

On 05 Feb 2015, at 15:30, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:

Dear all,

We have been musing about how to make it easy to mark up examples in human-readable renditions, and how best to enable that in the RDF as source. I think, Ramona, that the separate example usage annotations solve multiple real problems that we have right now and align us well with how we would like to manage Darwin Core in BCO. Thus, though it may not be necessary for Darwin Core at this time, I think it will actually help us.

Thus, I would like to formally amend the original proposal. Specifically, I would add a new attribute dwcattributes:example. I would add an instance of this attribute for every example in every Darwin Core term. All examples would be removed from the definitions and comments. The recommendations on controlled vocabularies would still be moved consistently to the comments as in the original proposal.

Given this proposed amendment, I'll change the end-date for commentary on this proposal to 5 Mar 2015.

Cheers,

John

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008 at gmail.com> wrote:

This is a good idea. In theory the recommendation could go into a separate annotation (e.g., we use "example of usage" in BCO), but I don't think that is necessary for DwC at this juncture.

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 Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:00 AM, <tdwg-content-request at lists.tdwg.org> wrote:

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tdwg-content digest..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:58:06 +0100
From: John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
Subject: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content
        recommendations to comments
To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAHwKGGc7sK3Dg8KTN_NYe4S+OYk=YE+-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:YE%2B-dRxjKPS-dNnGhAvjMw at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

During the process of reviewing the recent set of changes to the Darwin
Core standard in early November 2014, it was proposed to make the
definitions and comments for terms more consistent in their treatment of
content recommendations. The specific proposal is logged in the Darwin Core
issue tracker as https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/26.

The gist of the proposal is that recommendations on how to populate a term
are often in the definition whereas we would like them to be consistently
in the comments section. The list of affected terms is given below for
reference.

This message is to elicit responses from any who might have a reason to
recommend against these changes, which are not semantic in nature. We will
leave this proposal open for commentary until 19 February 2015 unless
further discussion arises resulting in amendments.

Cheers,

John

The following terms have recommendations in the definitions, which we would
like to move to comments:

datasetID
occurrenceID
sex
lifeStage
reproductiveCondition
behavior
establishmentMeans
occurrenceStatus
organismID
organismScope
materialSampleID
eventID
eventDate
eventTime
locationID
higherGeographyID
continent
waterBody
islandGroup
island
country
countryCode
municipality
locality
minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
locationAccordingTo
decimalLatitude
decimalLongitude
geodeticDatum
coordinateUncertaintyInMeters
pointRadiusSpatialFit
verbatimCoordinates
verbatimLatitude
verbatimLongitude
verbatimCoordinateSystem
verbatimSRS
footprintWKT
footprintSRS
footprintSpatialFit
georeferencedDate
georeferenceVerificationStatus
geologicalContextID
identificationID
dateIdentified
identificationVerificationStatus
taxonID
scientificName
subgenus
taxonRank
nomenclaturalCode
taxonomicStatus
measurementID
measurementType
measurementUnit
measurementDeterminedDate
relationshipOfResource
relationshipEstablishedDate

while the following terms already have the recommendations in the comments:

institutionID
collectionID
basisOfRecord
dynamicProperties
recordedBy
preparations
disposition
associatedMedia
associatedReferences
associatedSequences
associatedTaxa
otherCatalogNumbers
associatedOccurrences
associatedOrganisms
previousIdentifications
higherGeography
georeferencedBy
georeferenceSources
typeStatus
identifiedBy
identificationReferences
higherClassification
measurementDeterminedBy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150119/38ca5b70/attachment-0001.html

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150205/8efc9566/attachment.html 