[tdwg-humboldt] Markdown version of isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive Guidelines
yanina.sica at yale.edu
Wed May 17 09:42:15 UTC 2023
Thank you Steve!
Lets meet today to discuss the statis of all prepared documents.
When to meet
Wednesdays 8 am EST (see your time here<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20230419T120000&p1=1440&p2=111&p3=37&p4=136&p5=51&p6=179&p7=64&p8=75&p9=224&p10=248&p11=152>)
Where to meet
Zoom link: https://yale.zoom.us/j/97318391101<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://yale.zoom.us/j/97318391101&sa=D&source=calendar&usd=2&usg=AOvVaw131_ZV9o-84ivZDjGbSTBJ>
Yanina V. Sica, PhD
Lead Data Team
Map of Life<https://mol.org/> | Center for Biodiversity and Global Change<https://bgc.yale.edu/>
If you are receiving this email outside of your working hours, I am not expecting you to read or respond.
From: tdwg-humboldt <tdwg-humboldt-bounces at lists.tdwg.org> on behalf of Baskauf, Steven James <steve.baskauf at Vanderbilt.Edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 12:46 AM
To: The Humboldt Core Task Group discussion <tdwg-humboldt at lists.tdwg.org>; wmh6 at cornell.edu <wmh6 at cornell.edu>
Subject: [tdwg-humboldt] Markdown version of isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive Guidelines
I’ve done a conversion of the isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive Guidelines to Markdown. You can see the draft at:
When it’s good enough, I’ll submit it as a pull request to somewhere in the Humboldt repo.
1. In the Google Doc, some text earlier in the doc repeated what was in the Examples section, so I deleted it.
2. I added the standard status (1.1) and RFC 2119 keyword section (1.2) section. After reading the doc, it seems that only section 3 is normative, so I stated that, and labeled all of the major sections as to whether they were normative or not. I made a few changes to section 3 so that the RFC 2119 keywords were include where I though they needed to be, so please read that section again to make sure that these prescriptive wordings make sense.
3. I can’t remember who did the work of writing the doc, so please check the contributors section at the top to make sure I got it right.
4. I made up an abstract from info in the introduction.
5. I split the Introduction and Rationale into 2 separate sections to follow the pattern of other TDWG documents: having an initial introductory section, the technical sections (1.1-1.3) then the main text. This seemed to work out if I split the first paragraph out and used it for the intro and put the rest into rationale.
I was rigorous in distinguishing between text that referred to abbreviated term IRIs (like dwc:Event) and colloquial use of terms (like “organism”) by putting the abbreviated term IRIs (and literal values) in code markup as has been standard practice in other documents. However, there were many places in the document where it straddled the fence by using capitalized words like “Event”, “Taxon”, or “Organism”. These either were term IRIs or they weren’t. Since they weren’t prefixed by a namespace abbreviation, I assumed they were just nouns and not term IRIs and I changed them to lower case. If that was not the intention and “dwc:Event”, “dwc:Taxon”, and “dwc:Organism” were intended, then they should all be re-capitalized and prepended with a namespace abbreviation. We can discuss what was intended at our meeting tomorrow and I’ll change them as necessary.
See you in the morning.
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D. he/him/his
Data Science and Data Curation Specialist / Librarian III
Jean & Alexander Heard Libraries, Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235, USA
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Executive Committee/Technical Architecture Group Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-humboldt