Ratification of Extended Measurement Or Facts extention

[Daphnisd]

At the GEO BON data mobilization symposium last week @kbraak and Dmitry Schigel let me know that GBIF would benefit from ratification by TDWG of the custom eMoF extension created by OBIS and described at https://bdj.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=10989&instance_id=3385374.

I assume the problem is that extension offers a workaround the star schema. I'm confused as to whether the star schema is a GBIF implementation or a TDWG standard. @tucotuco, can you comment?

What would be needed for GBIF to promote/allow the use of the eMoF? Is TDWG ratification needed, and if so, what exactly needs to be ratified?

[jmacklin]

Hi Daphnis,

John can say more but TDWG has not ratified DwC extensions in the past however, we have just ratified a new set of procedures (Documentation and Maintenance Standard) that will make this possible and there are a couple of extensions that have been put forward for review. So, if one of the authors of the Measurement of Fact extension wants to submit it to TDWG we can put it into the review process. Extensions that are not "ratified" can certainly still be used :-)

The star schema is an implementation used in the Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT) developed by GBIF and is thus not related to TDWG.

Best, JAmes

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Daphnis De Pooter [email protected] wrote:

At the GEO BON data mobilization symposium last week @kbraak https://github.com/kbraak and Dmitry Schigel let me know that GBIF would benefit from ratification by TDWG of the custom eMoF extension http://rs.gbif.org/extension/obis/extended_measurement_or_fact.xml created by OBIS and described at https://bdj.pensoft.net/ articles.php?id=10989&instance_id=3385374.

I assume the problem is that extension offers a workaround the star schema. I'm confused as to whether the star schema is a GBIF implementation or a TDWG standard. @tucotuco https://github.com/tucotuco, can you comment?

What would be needed for GBIF to promote/allow the use of the eMoF? Is TDWG ratification needed, and if so, what exactly needs to be ratified?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/issues/81, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD8fbSxPGY0iytkfmbrcyc7uGRxZw3rQks5sK3W1gaJpZM4OON7B .

[tucotuco]

I second what James has said here. In practical terms of publication, the star schema is a current limitation, the demise of which is likely forthcoming with the advent of a W3C recommendation for file sharing of related CSV files, which GBIF (Time Robertson) has been participating in developing.

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:10 AM, James Macklin [email protected] wrote:

Hi Daphnis,

John can say more but TDWG has not ratified DwC extensions in the past however, we have just ratified a new set of procedures (Documentation and Maintenance Standard) that will make this possible and there are a couple of extensions that have been put forward for review. So, if one of the authors of the Measurement of Fact extension wants to submit it to TDWG we can put it into the review process. Extensions that are not "ratified" can certainly still be used :-)

The star schema is an implementation used in the Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT) developed by GBIF and is thus not related to TDWG.

Best, JAmes

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Daphnis De Pooter < [email protected]> wrote:

At the GEO BON data mobilization symposium last week @kbraak https://github.com/kbraak and Dmitry Schigel let me know that GBIF would benefit from ratification by TDWG of the custom eMoF extension http://rs.gbif.org/extension/obis/extended_measurement_or_fact.xml created by OBIS and described at https://bdj.pensoft.net/ articles.php?id=10989&instance_id=3385374.

I assume the problem is that extension offers a workaround the star schema. I'm confused as to whether the star schema is a GBIF implementation or a TDWG standard. @tucotuco https://github.com/tucotuco, can you comment?

What would be needed for GBIF to promote/allow the use of the eMoF? Is TDWG ratification needed, and if so, what exactly needs to be ratified?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/issues/81, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AD8fbSxPGY0iytkfmbrcyc7uGRxZw3rQks5sK3W1gaJpZM4OON7B> .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/issues/81#issuecomment-313098267, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAcP61dcn5Od2JIVcW4SgGsb904uG-ykks5sK4tFgaJpZM4OON7B .

[dagendresen]

I agree that "ratification" of the eMoF extension might not be needed or useful. However, the eMoF extension introduces three new terms that are not (yet?) part of Darwin Core. Namely measurementTypeID, measurementValueID and measurementUnitID.

However, there already exists dwciri:measurementType and dwciri:measurementUnit (but not dwciri:measurementValue), http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/rdf/index.htm