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

Thu Feb 5 17:10:01 CET 2015

I definitely support the move to using a separate annotation property for
examples in DwC. However, I would strongly encourage you to  reuse an
existing property, rather than make up a new one for DwC. It seems like
either skos:example or iao:example of usage would work. iao:example of
usage is what we use in BCO, so that would make it compatible.

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, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Éamonn Ó Tuama [GBIF] <eotuama at gbif.org>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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/e9b5fec3/attachment.html 