1. TDWG Infrastructure Project (TIP) Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Roger Hyam TDWG Executive Meeting June 1-2, 2006 - Madrid, Spain

2. TAG – Proposed Role Maintain an account of current situation. Maintain a vision of how things could be. Provided formal advice to the Executive Committee on new subgroups and standards. Provided advice to TDWG members on how their work can integrate with others. (all from a purely technical perspective)

3. Paradigm Starting assumption is that standards are about sharing data. Sharing data also implies sharing data through time. Archive

4. What is Shared? Sharing raw literals isn’t much use. They need to be gathered together into ‘semantic’ units or objects. TaxonName:1234 Bellis perennis perennis Bellis 1234

5. Semantics of Objects Objects need to be based on some shared semantics. There needs to be somewhere to look up what they mean – an ontology. TaxonName: Bellis perennis Ontology TaxonName?

6. Identity of Objects How do I refer to this object? Who should I credit? Who should I send corrections to? Is it the same record as I already have or is it a new one? What is the official version of this data - has some one altered it before I received it?

7. TAG-1 Meeting There was consensus on- –Architecture is concerned with shared data –Biodiversity data will be modeled as a graph of identifiable objects –The semantics of these objects will be encoded in a series of shared ontologies –Ontologies will be related to each other on the basis of a shared Base and Core ontologies as a minimum Discussion continues on how this is done

8. Implications We need a ontology to define and relate the objects we exchange. Ontology governance/management is paramount. We need a system of GUIDs to identify the objects. We need a roadmap for the protocols to exchange these objects.

9. Structure of the Ontology Base Ontology Core Ontology Domain Ontology Application Ontologies BaseThing BaseActor CoreTaxonNameCoreInstitution TaxonName NomencalturalType NomeclaturalNote Herbarium ABCDDarwinCore???

10. Ontology Governance Allow people to create Domain sub- ontologies easily – prevent alienation. Each ontology construct (concept) has a status. Status is increased by passing through explicit gates defined by actual usage. ExperimentalSharedRecommend

11. Recommendations We need to develop a TDWG standard that specifies how we manage the TDWG ontology. We need a technology independent way of working with the ontology that can be understood and manipulated by biologists – some form of web based application.

12. Protocols Resolution – LSID, URL etc. Harvest – OAI, RSS, other? Search/Query – BioCASe, DiGIR, TAPIR, SPARQL, other?

13. Challenges ProtocolNumber at end 2007 DiGIR200+ BioCASe~100 TAPIR10 possibly 40+ SPARQL30+ LSID10?

14. Solutions Resolution and harvest protocols are relatively easy to plug into or wrap round existing service providers. Implementers of the most widely used protocols are ‘on board’. …We have a clear, agreed direction.