[tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg ontology
David Remsen
dremsen at mbl.edu
Mon Apr 27 15:46:40 CEST 2009
Kevin, Can you tell me what the limitations are on being able to
exchange taxonomic information with the DwC terms? As far as I can
tell, you can exchange fairly complex taxonomic information short of
concept-to-concept relations and I find the DwC-with-extensions
approach we are using to exchanging information tied to taxa (not
instances of taxa) to be a nice and practical compromise between
complexity and practicality. My understanding is that the IPT can
output TCS/RDF for those who want it. I am personally very happy to
see the DwC taxon terms added. Finally I can provide format
specifications that biologists can understand.
David Remsen
On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Kevin Richards wrote:
> I see the ontology as a model of ALL (hopefully, eventually all) the
> data in our domain of biodiversity informatics.
> I would love to see it as a standard (at the least it might give it
> a bit more clout).
> I agree that the ontology is useful to tie other TDWG schemas
> together, using it as a core/master model. I would be happy to see
> it used for ALL tasks within TDWG, but I understand the usefulnes of
> the more specific schemas/standards - horses for courses.
>
> If I understand Stan here, I agree with him about the dubious use of
> DwC for representing Taxon Concepts/Names. As far as I know, it was
> really intended as a transfer standard for observation records?? It
> contains very limited taxon information! It really is not a overly
> difficult job to use a more suitable schema/ontology. I think the
> popularity of Darwin Core is due to its simplicity - and I wonder if
> what Roger is proposing will help with this - ie an XML
> implementation of the ontology as well as an RDF version. This will
> allow people to create very simple XML documents with reasonably
> simple/flat data, eg an xml document of TaxonName entities, with
> perhaps 6 or 7 or so key fields - even simpler than DwC. :-)
>
> Kevin
>
> From: tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-tag-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Blum, Stan [sblum at calacademy.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2009 6:12 a.m.
> To: Technical Architecture Group mailing list; exec at tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg ontology
>
> From: tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org on behalf of John R. WIECZOREK
> Sent: Fri 2009-04-24 8:58 AM
> To: Roger Hyam
> Cc: Technical Architecture Group mailing list
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] darwin core terms inside tdwg ontology
>
> Anything I should do on the DwC side in anticipation of harmony?
>
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#theterms
> ===========================================================
> John,
>
> At some point, all or (most) of the DarwinCore terms need to be
> added to the TDWG ontology.
>
> But having said that, I also need to say that I'm uncomfortable with:
>
> 1) The current state of the TDWG ontology (primarily the naming
> conventions; lets just use terms names), and our understanding of
> the role it plays in TDWG and how it will be managed (entry of
> terms, integration of terms into the conceptual [is-a / has-a]
> relationships to other terms); and
>
> 2) the fact that the new DarwinCore straddles or overlaps the roles
> of an ontology and an application schema.
>
> I understood the past TAG roadmaps to indicate that we were adopting
> an approach in which the TDWG Ontology would be a repository for
> data concepts that are present in (or implied by) TDWG standards;
> and that real data transmission would be accomplished with
> application schemas. The ontology itself would not be a standard,
> but would be a tool that helps integrate standards. I thought our
> standards would be created to function as application schemas or
> components of application schemas (as in the DwC and its
> extensions). I am now pretty confused. I'd like to hear the
> rationale for combining taxonomic name/concept with organism
> occurrence. I haven't gone over all the existing docs, so apologies
> if I've missed that, but I think it's confusing that a (new)
> DarwinCore record could be either a taxonomic name or an organism
> occurrence, or maybe something else. Maybe I'm too attached to
> object orientation and just don't GET the semantic web, but it feels
> to me like we are stepping into squishy ground.
>
> Also, I the the DCMI maintenance procedures are also more
> appropriately applied to the ontology than a TDWG standard. The
> existing process for ratifying TDWG standards and the procedure in
> the DwC seem to be pretty explicitly in conflict; one can change the
> other cannot (without becoming another thing).
>
> Is anyone else having these same trepidations? I don't think I've
> been as much of a Rip Van Winkle as Jim Croft, but I clearly missed
> some important shifts.
>
> -Stan
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read,
> use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
> immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare
> Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20090427/bdc446ac/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list