[tdwg-tag] RDF/OWL Good Practices Task Group

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at nescent.org
Fri Sep 23 21:51:10 CEST 2011

Joel -

I've made a number of edits. These are in part to put the motivation  
into a larger beyond-TDWG context, and in part to make it a little  
more future-proof. The charter in places read (to me) more like a  
workshop agenda than a charter, thus preempting decisions that the TG  
participants might (want to) make to a degree that I wasn't fully  
comfortable with. I've tried to make it take a step back.

I also removed the sentence about handing off to the TAG after one  
year - while that may be what the participants indeed decide to do  
after one year, it's not what I'd want ingrained in the charter, and  
also a one-off mindset isn't necessarily what I'd like to start with.  
More to the point, if the TG (or whatever its successor(s)) doesn't  
maintain those documents, I'm afraid nobody will, and there is plenty  
of empirical evidence around the TDWG site to support that.


On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, joel sachs wrote:

> Greetings everyone,
> After some back and forth amongst Steve Baskauf, myself, Greg  
> Whitbread,
> and the executive, we've decided to move forward with an RDF/OWL task
> group, convened under the TAG. Our task will be to deliver a document
> comprising
> i. use cases and competency questions;
> ii. well documented examples of addressing those use cases via rdf and
> sparql; and
> iii. discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the approaches
> illustrated by the examples.
> Our draft charter is at
> http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/CharterOfTG
> and we welcome comments, suggestions, and better ideas. One area where
> we're still open is the question of whether or not our deliverable  
> should
> be an official Best Current Practice document [1]. The charter  
> reflects
> our current feeling that it should not. After we deliver our "book  
> of use
> cases and examples", options would include being re-chartered by the  
> to produce a best practices document, spinning off as a "Semantic Web
> Interest Group", or disbanding (either in triumph or despair).
> When we were planning to convene as an Interest Group, several of you
> accepted our invitation to serve as core members, and we hope that
> convening as a Task Group does not change your willingness to do so.  
> If
> you would like to be a core member of the group, and we haven't yet
> contacted you, there's a good chance that we will. But don't wait!  
> Feel
> free to volunteer for core membership. (And recall that you don't  
> have to
> be a "core member to" contribute.)
> In regards timeline, I'd like to incorporate any feedback we  
> receive, and
> submit the charter to the executive at the end of this week, in  
> hopes of
> being chartered by New Orleans.
> Many thanks!
> Joel.
> 1. http://www.tdwg.org/standards/status-and-categories/
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag

: Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list