-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Finalize new term request for material entities top-level term #32
Conversation
This is great. I have some suggested edits. I can do that as comments here, or commit the suggestion on that branch or wait until it gets merged. Do you have a preference? |
For specific edits, especially uncontroversial ones, I would suggest to directly add one or several commits to this feature branch. If you think the edits would be conceptual in nature, changing existing parts of the draft significantly with potential controversy - then perhaps let's first discuss those not to lose oversight. A third option would be to comment individual lines / blocks in a specific commit (i.e. incrementally changed version of the file) or to use the Review changes button & functionality on the right-hand side of the Files changed tab. This would also be fine and perhaps even preferred for specific changes. |
I like all of this except that I think the first sentence of the Usage Comments
is redundant. It basically repeats the label and then repeats part of the definition. If it is important to say that the class refers to "material entities", then I would suggest that be put in the definition as: "A material entity that is expected..." Otherwise, nothing would be lost by deleting that first sentence. |
The current draft for the term request for Thank you for the contributions so far - these go nicely together in my view. Please add any further comments regarding the proposal for the New Term Request for |
wording changes and add links
wording edits and links
Following the task group's discussion and recommendation from January 18 I created a draft new term request (NTR) using the NTR template in the task group's repository. The draft builds on the previous discussion in the task group and the previous proposal to import dcterms:PhysicalResource to implement the top-level term.
Significant parts of the draft NTR have been taken from the previous term request submitted by @baskaufs. I took the liberty of re-using parts of it as many aspects of the two proposals are identical - they differ in how the top-level term is implemented, not in its intended role.
The stability justification makes reference to
dwc:MaterialSample
,dwc:PreservedSpecimen
,dwc:LivingSpecimen
,dwc:FossilSpecimen
as existing terms in DwC which would informally be regarded as subclasses of the new term. While I think that what is contained in this section is correct, I wonder if information should be added regarding the addition ofdwc:materialEntityType
with an extensible list of corresponding values and if this means that the other terms need to be deprecated after all (I don't think they should - my understanding is that schema information (subclasses etc) and possibly other semantic information is easiest to complement the base terminology as additional layers if all relevant terms are actually included as individual elements in the terminology). Please advise.Please also review the usage notes and the examples in particular. I know that the placement of
dwc:Organism
is contentious. The current examples reflect my understanding of the new term.