[tdwg-content] Request for public comment on Darwin Core proposals
tuco at berkeley.edu
Thu Oct 1 12:47:35 UTC 2020
These proposed changes, which have passed public review and will be
prepared for review by the TDWG Executive Committee as soon as possible.
Congratulations to Quentin Groom and colleagues for an exemplary and
successful contribution to the evolution of Darwin Core.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:36 PM John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> The Darwin Core Maintenance Group is pleased to announce the opening of a
> 30 day review period (ending 30 September) and seek your feedback for the
> following changes to Darwin Core that are of particular interest to those
> documenting evidence of invasive and introduced species:
> - Change the definition of establishmentMeans (
> - Add two new terms: pathway https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/236
> and degreeOfEstablishment (https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/237
> - Add controlled vocabularies to use with these three terms (
> , https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/258
> , https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/259
> Please leave comments on the issues linked above. If you are unable or
> prefer not to create GitHub comments, send them to the Maintenance Group
> convenor at gtuco.btuco at gmail.com. They will be added to the issues on
> your behalf, crediting you as the source.
> About the Process:
> Because the Vocabulary Maintenance process is being put into effect
> publicly for only the second time, and the first time for Darwin Core, it
> is worthwhile to call out from the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification
> how this works and where we are in the process.
> "*Because the primary purpose of TDWG vocabularies is to facilitate data
> sharing, it is necessary to show that multiple parties will benefit from
> the change. As such, it is a minimum requirement that two independent
> entities indicate that they desire the change (the demand requirement).
> Additionally, it is required that there is a consensus within the community
> that the proposed change will accomplish the desired outcome (the efficacy
> requirement), and that making the change will not adversely affect the
> interoperability of existing implementations that depend on the stability
> of the vocabulary (the stability requirement).*"
> The *demand requirement* has already been met and documented in the
> issues. We are now interested in finding consensus in confirming the
> *efficacy* and *stability requirements*. This brings us to the public
> review, commencing with this announcement. The steps, from the
> Specification, are as follows:
> *If the maintaining Interest Group determines that the proposed term
> change is likely to meet the demand, efficacy, and stability requirements,
> it will conduct a minimum 30 day comment period. The start of the comment
> period will be announced on the TDWG email list [TDWG-CONTENT]. In an
> effort to reach consensus, the proposal may be modified based on discussion
> during the comment period. Consensus is indicated by no dissenting opinion
> expressed publicly on the mailing list for 30 days from the most recent
> modification of the proposal. The term change proposal may be modified by
> its submitter or the Interest Group in an attempt to shape a proposal that
> can achieve community consensus. A change in the official proposal will
> trigger the start of a new 30 day period.If the Interest Group believes
> that a consensus has been reached, the proposal will be presented by the
> Interest Group to the Executive Committee for a decision.*"
> We look forward to your participation in this community process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content