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

Peter DeVries pete.devries at gmail.com
Sat Sep 24 03:19:50 CEST 2011

Hi Joel,

I thought I should let you know that I have been working on a paper with
some people from the EoL on this very subject.

In fact the whole goal of the TaxonConcept/GeoSpecies project is setup
examples and work these issues out.

It is not clear to me if this new group will be any different from the
previous group where some mysterious entity decided what suggestions were to
accepted and who would get attribution for that suggestion.

If this new group operates like the old group then it is not in my best
interest or many others to participate.

What I would like to avoid are the experiences I had implementing features
and making changes which later the person who requested the modification
"changes their mind".

If you go back to the reasoning as to why part of TaxonConcept were done in
the way that they were you will see it was in part to allow it to be
portable and able to be taked up by some other group.

In a sense, an early version of a semantic web version of the Darwin Core
already exists in TaxonConcept.

So what is the reasoning behind this new group that is different from the
reasoning I used when I proposed such a group earlier on multiple


- Pete

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM, joel sachs <jsachs at csee.umbc.edu> 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 TAG
> 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

Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20110923/86ec0365/attachment.html 

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list