[tdwg-content] Darwin Core Standard - proposed change in governance
jsachs at csee.umbc.edu
Tue Jan 20 18:25:53 CET 2015
John et al.,
I like the idea of the standard residing in a single
document. It is important, though, that deprecated terms continue to resolve, ideally
returning the definition, a "Deprecated" flag, and a helpful message like
"Use dwc:xyz instead" or "See http://tdwg.org/abc for discussion".
In general, a distinction is drawn between deprecated and obsolete ,
with deprecated meaning "using this term is discouraged, but it won't
cause an error". Specific to Darwin Core, I'm thinking about all the
spreasheet data with an "IndividualID" column. Imagine a tool that
provides a terminology lookup service when column headers are moused over.
I think a good thing to display for "IndividualID" would be something
An identifier for an individual or named group of individual organisms
represented in the Occurrence. Meant to accommodate resampling of the same
individual or group for monitoring purposes. May be a global unique
identifier or an identifier specific to a data set.
Use OrganismID instead.
Of course, having deprecated terms in a file separate from the recommended
terms *can* accommodate resolution of the deprecated terms, via redirect
rules, etc. I'm just making the point that "what do you see when you
dereference a term?" is as important a question as "what documents
constitute the standard?"
1. See, e.g.,
As noted elsewhere -
- this distinction is spelled out in the Conformance section of HTML 4 -
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#h-4.1 - but is dropped from HTML
5 in favour of other terminology.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, John Wieczorek wrote:
> Dear all,
> Peter Desmet, Markus DÃ¶ring, and I have been working on the transition of
> Darwin Core maintenance from the Google Code Site to Github. We've taken
> the opportunity to streamline the process of making updates to the standard
> when they are ratified, such as scripts to produce the human-readable
> content and auxiliary files from the RDF document of current terms. As a
> result of this work, we see further opportunities to simplify the
> maintenance of the standard. They center on the following proposal.
> We would like to propose that the *RDF document of current terms* be made
> to represent the *normative standard for Darwin Core* rather than *Complete
> History normative document* we use now. We would also like to make that new
> normative document the only document in the standard.
> Under this proposal:
> 1) the normative standard for Darwin Core would consist of a single
> document at http://rs.tdwg.org/terms/dwc_normative.rdf (not currently
> 2) information currently held in
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/rdf/dwctermshistory.rdf (the current normative
> document) and the corresponding Complete History web page (
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/index.htm) would be retained only in a
> history document http://rs.tdwg.org/terms/history.html (not currently
> 3) all documents other than the proposed normative document would not be
> part of the standard.
> The proposed changes require community consensus under the existing rules
> of governance of the Darwin Core. This means that the proposal must be
> under public review for at least 30 days after an apparent consensus on the
> proposal and any amendments to it is reached, where consensus consists of
> no publicly-shared opposition.
> The implications of this proposal are many. One of the most important is
> that the rules governing changes to the standard (
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm) would no longer be a part
> of the standard. Instead, we would promote the adoption of these rules
> across TDWG standards rather than just within Darwin Core. It may be that
> TDWG is not ready to accommodate this at the moment. If so, the Namespace
> Policy could remain within the Darwin Core standard until the broader
> governance process for TDWG can cover it, at which point we would propose
> to remove the Namespace Policy from the Darwin Core.
> Other comments about the proposed changes:
> Having one RDF document for the terms in the dwc namespace will avoid
> confusion. Only those with status 'recommended' would be in the normative
> Having the term history (all versions, including deprecated, superseded,
> and recommended ones) in a web page only is what Dublin Core does. It means
> no one would be able to reason over old versions of the Darwin Core. Would
> anyone do that?
> Having no document other than the normative one as part of the standard
> would free the whole rest of the body of Darwin Core documentation from the
> requirements of public review and Executive Committee approval. This would
> make that documentation much more open to broader contributions and easier
> to adapt to evolving demands.
> We do not propose to lose any of the documentation we have.
> Please share your comments!
More information about the tdwg-content