Home
UsernamePassword
Managing vocabularies used for the description of biodiversity resources

Share |
Group discussion > Report of Vocabulary Management Task Group (VoMaG) v.01: review and feedback

Report of Vocabulary Management Task Group (VoMaG) v.01: review and feedback

Éamonn Ó Tuama
1548 days ago

Please use this page to discuss the v.01 draft report of the TDWG Vocabulary Management Task Group (VoMaG).

In keeping with the timeline, we are sharing a draft of the VoMaG report with you. You are invited to review this and provide feedback, suggesting edits/amendments/additions. As the number of members of VoMaG is too large to share a document using track changes, we have, instead, issued a PDF with line numbers. Please refer to these to specify location of content in the document.

The deadline for feedback is May 31 after which we will revise the document and release it for public comment prior to submitting it to TDWG.

Hanna Koivula
1521 days ago

I would like to comment the Framework for Vocabulary Management part as it is close to my heart.

About the recommendations:
row 700 Recommendation 5:
I think we could add or extend this recommendation to name here the minimum requirements for this metadata. Mandatory or strongly recommended fields could be extracted from the more general LOD and DCAT metadata recommendations, but also add some valuabe requirements that are unique for Species ocurrence and primary data and describe the purpose and quality of the data. Examples:1) Purpose of the vocabulary in this context 2) expressivity (for the purpose) 3) published mappings to other theme or general vocabularies... 4) provenance ...to name a few...

Éamonn Ó Tuama
1501 days ago

Regarding Recommendation 5, following from Hanna, I think we should strongly recommend that a vocabulary is defined using the metadata element set described for Linked Open Data vocabularies. See table below which I have abstracted from http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/Recommendations_Vocabulary_Design.pdf . Those could be the minimum recommended elements.

Identification

voaf:Vocabulary

Indicates that a vocabulary is the resource being described by the metadata

vann:preferredNamespecePrefix

The prefix for the vocabulary namespace

Vann:preferredNamespaceUri

The namespace for the vocabulary

Title and Description

dc:title

The title (label) of the vocabulary

dc:description

A description of the purpose of the vocabulary

Version and modification

dc:issued

The date when the vocabulary was first published

dc:modified

The date when the vocabulary was last modified

owl:versionInfo

The current version of the vocabulary

rdfs:comment

Comments or further information about the vocabulary

Rights and property

dc:rights

Intellectual property rights

cc:licence

Licence

dc:creator

Creator of the vocabulary

dc:contributor

Contributor to the vocabulary

dc:publisher

Publisher of the vocabulary

In addition, each element within a vocabulary should, at a minimum, have, at least (following LOD recommendations):

Vocabulary elements

rdfs:label

The label (title) of the element

rdfs:comment

The definition of the element

rdfs:isDefinedBy

The namespace (URI) of the vocabulary the element belongs to

vs:term_status

The status of the element

The DCAT specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/) does not seem immediately relevant for describing vocabularies. It could potentially be used to describe a catalogue of vocabularies in which case, the LOD metadata above would be mapped to the dcat:Dataset (representing a dataset record in the catalogue - in our case a vocabulary). Additional elements we might borrow from dcat:Dataset are dct:language, dcat:landingPage and possibly dcat:keyword.