Taxon WG Conference Call_19 Aug 2004

This is version 2. It is not the current version, and thus it cannot be edited.
[Back to current version]   [Restore this version]

Present: Jessie Kennedy, Robert Kukla, Trevor Paterson, Dave Thau, Bob Peet, Xianhua Liu, Aimee Stewart, Robert Gales, Joana Trajkova

Agenda: A response to the following points put forth in an email from Robert and Aimee.

KU Email

Given your concession to allow any type of relationship outside of a TaxonConcept, I think we can make our system work with your schema. We are thinking of this as purely a vehicle for transfering data, but I get the feeling that there are some assumptions that go hand in hand with it - if so, could you make those available?

Teleconference

JK agreed that yes, Napier is considering that there are some assumptions/rules on how different groups (i.e. SEEK) would interpret the data from the schema. They will document these assumptions for later discussion.

KU Email

The Assertion element name should be changed since it is already established as something different in Taxonomer. Perhaps something less ambiguous - Relationship, Link ...?

Teleconference

Napier agrees that this is a problematic element name, but would prefer to address this issue after more discussion at the TDWG conference in October.

KU Email

Metadata (and sub elements Creator and CreationTime) should be required

Teleconference

Fine with Napier.

KU Email

Define elements before they are referenced - so put Vouchers and Publications right after Metadata.

Teleconference

Fine with Napier.

KU Email

Add Repositories (before Vouchers) and AccordingTos (after Publications) and allow both of them to be referenced.

Teleconference

KU Email: Add the ability to transfer an existing TaxonConcept by its GUID. The GUID would be sufficient,

no data would be allowed, to prevent a GUID being sent with incorrect data.

Teleconference: Napier explained that the GUID of an existing TaxonConcept (in the TaxonConcepts element) can be

transfered in the TaxonConcept id attribute with the type attribute equal to "empty". KU now

understands the thinking behind this, though would prefer for GUIDs in this element to be treated

similarly to the GUIDs in the FromTaxonConcepts and ToTaxonConcepts elsewhere in the schema. There

may not be an elegant way to prevent the transfer of a GUID with incompatible data, so we will table

this disagreement for the time being.

KU Email: Add the ability to transfer an existing "Assertion" by its GUID alone.

Teleconference: KU explained that this would allow the transfer of GUID-labeled relationships between data

providers, just as a provider might wish to transfer a single GUID-labeled taxonConcept. Napier

suggested that this could be done by putting the GUID in the Assertion id attribute, but

acknowledged that the current solution is not ideal because there is no "type=empty" attribute that

would indicate this element is a GUID and needs no further data.

Teleconference: Robert Kukla offered to create an updated version of the schema, with the agreed upon

modifications for internal use by SEEK Taxon. The publicly presented schema will not change for the

time being. With the new internal schema, Aimee will return to coding the parser for use in the

EnterProviderData API.

Robert Kukla and Jessie will be leaving October 2 for TDWG in New Zealand. They will be

presenting the schema as a global solution to the problem of exchanging taxonomic data. They would

also like to represent the SEEK viewpoint (at the same conference, but at a separate time) on the

definition of a taxonomic concept, and how the SEEK Taxon system will interact with the community.

Jessie will go directly from New Zealand to Kansas, joined by Trevor Paterson, for the SEEK

All-hands meeting.

The next conference call is tentatively scheduled for

Thursday, 2 September 2004, 15:00 GMT.