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

Blum, Stan SBlum at calacademy.org
Sat Sep 24 01:51:45 CEST 2011

Bob is right -- interest groups and task groups run as long as there is
interest AND no one moves (actively) to terminate the group.  So even if
interest/activity trails off, the group still exists "on the books" to
embarrass us and make us feel guilty.

We have several groups that need to be revitalized, so to speak.  And we
have a few that might need to be re-factored.  DarwinCore now overlaps
Observations, Taxonomic Names and Concepts, possibly this new RDF group,
etc.  But those are OPP -- other people's problems -- for the moment.

But Hilmar is also right that TAG is more than a normal IG.  It has a review
and advice role, in service to the executive and all the other interest

In response to Hilmar's question, why should a task group have a charter? :
to communicate the group's function to anyone not directly involved.  The
approval is primarily to ensure that the communication is happening.

BTW, I don't have strong feelings about whether this group should be a task
group in TAG, or an independent Interest Group.  Focus on the work, not the


On 9/23/11 3:53 PM, "Bob Morris" <morris.bob at gmail.com> wrote:

> You'll still have to have tasks, task groups, and TG charters. I don't
> think you gain anything by proliferating IGs. It looks to me that the
> outputs desired are outputs about the TDWG technical architecture. The
> TAG charter is pretty unambiguous that these admirable outcomes are
> part of its remit. As you remark, there either are or aren't people
> interested in maintaining these outcomes. Those people can join the
> TAG or they can join the newly named IG.  What difference will there
> be in the workflow if it is a new IG or TAG?  I also don't think the
> TDWG constitution forbids renewable TGs. But even if it does, an
> annually chartered TG whose charter is essentially "we will review
> best practices document X and bring it up to date." is probably low
> overhead and quickly approved by the IG. If you can't find a group to
> do that, then you can't find it whether you have a disinterested
> interest group, or a disinterested task group.
> Bob
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp at nescent.org> wrote:
>> Hi Steve -
>> Bob suggested too that I changed the charter into an Interest Group charter.
>> So I'm sorry if rather than moving anything forward I created mostly
>> confusion.
>> Having said that, the changes I made are a reflection of the context and
>> scope of charge in which I think this group, whether it is now an IG or TG,
>> should be operating, i.e., that I feel would make the most sense. I feel
>> pretty strongly that producing and practically validating RDF/OWL data
>> publishing and consumption practices will consist of more than one task, and
>> the idea that this is a task we can do once and for all is rather concerning
>> to me. In fact, IMHO it isn't even worth attempting - the technology
>> landscape in this area is evolving so rapidly, anything we produce now is
>> virtually guaranteed to be obsolete in one year if no group feels committed
>> to maintain it.
>> I'll also admit that I'm actually surprised to find that the TAG is an IG
>> similar to all others. I would think the TAG ought to be a cross-cutting
>> group that integrates the output from all IGs, and has no TGs of its own
>> other than those devoted to accomplishing this cross-IG integration.
>> Finally, if TGs are devoted to accomplishing one task and then they
>> dissolve, I don't understand why anyone should be bothered with creating,
>> and then approving a charter to start with - shouldn't they rather have an
>> agenda (or possibly a proposal preceding that)? Either there are people
>> willing to do the task or there are not - I don't see the point of the
>> chartering/approval process here.
>> So, apparently the TDWG process just confuses the hell out of me. And
>> apparently it's really only an IG that would be in line with what I think is
>>  the most useful way to do this. Can we still change to IG?
>> -hilmar

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list