[obs] Joining DwC, OBOE, PO and PATO

[Hilmar Lapp]

Hi Cam:

On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Cam Webb wrote:

> What do you think would be the best platform for laying out the  
> various design options that are being discuss here and on tdwg- 
> content, free from DwC or LSID-voc constraints (for the moment),  
> with the goal of a consensus-based draft of a biodiversity  
> information template for the semantic web?  A new Task Group within  
> TDWG?  Something at NESCent?  It would be good to capitalize on the  
> momentum we have now and to throw down the various notes and  
> emergent consensus in one place.

I agree it would be good not to let the momentum dissipate, and I (and  
I'm sure not only I) think it's very timely, not least in the light of  
recent funding programs (e.g., NSF'S Dimensions of Biodiversity) and  
research efforts such as your own.

The design alternatives can I think well be formalized in shared  
ontologies (using e.g. OWL) and small demonstration datasets. However,  
you're asking another good question: should we also try to put  
institutional support and/or framework behind this to ensure a medium  
to long-term path forward. Probably yes. Note that NESCent's deadline  
for working groups is coming up on Dec 1, that might be one  
possibility to consider which would provide actual funding and a  
logistics support infrastructure.

>  Bob Morris is frequently warning us about the dangers of developing  
> SW structures without fully realizing what we're doing

I know he does that, but I think there aren't many if anyone who fully  
realize what they're doing in this realm, so my sense is we're in good  
company.

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