-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
Darwin Core Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
This page is meant to answer questions about the maintenance of the Darwin Core (DwC) standard. If you would like to add a question specifically about the maintenance of Darwin Core, please open an issue explaining what you would like to see covered on this page. If you can not or do not want to use Github, please instead send a message to the mailing list [email protected].
The Darwin Core Maintenance Group is responsible for the support and evolution of the Darwin Core standard.
The DwC Maintenance Group adheres to the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Vocabulary Maintenance Standard (VMS) with the processes elaborated in the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification.
Yes! We encourage open participation by anyone with interest in and commitment to making the Darwin Core more useful. For more information, contact the convener of the Darwin Core Maintenance Group.
See the Contributing Guide.
See the Contributing Guide.
There are two types of changes that can happen in the Darwin Core standard, non-normative and normative.
Non-normative changes are clarifications and error corrections. Usually these are manifested in amendments to usage comments or examples, and they must not affect the semantics of a term. Non-normative changes may happen at any time without a public review or ratification process at the discretion of the Darwin Core Maintenance Group. Non-normative changes do not generally result in a new release of the standard.
Normative changes include additions or changes that affect the semantics or use of terms. Normative changes must be introduced as described above under "How can I effect change in DwC?" and must undergo a minimum 30-day public review. A consensus must be achieved during public review in order for a change proposal to move forward to ratification. Normative changes will always result in a new release of the standard.
Starting in 2021, the goal of the Darwin Core Maintenance Group is to organize a minimum of one comprehensive public review per year of outstanding and mature issues (those that meet all justification requirements have sufficiently clear and complete proposals), resulting in a new release if justified by ratified normative changes. Anyone may participate in the public review. The only requirement is that opinions that are to be taken into account may not be anonymous.
The announcement of a public review is made through a Darwin Core Maintenance Issue, a message on the [email protected] mailing list, a news item released by Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), and by publication to and proliferation through social media. The initial review period is a minimum of 30 days. All of the proposals in a public review will be included in a single "milestone" in Github.
The Darwin Core Maintenance Group monitors and actively engages in discussions around the issues under public review, helping to refine proposals as necessary in order to achieve consensus. Consensus in this context is defined as having no dissenting opinion for a period of at least 30 days after the a call for public review is opened, or for a period of 30 days after the last proposed solution is provided to any objection that is raised, whichever comes later.
Given the number and diversity of changes that might be proposed, the Darwin Core Maintenance Group will monitor the commentaries and try to steer the proposals toward consensus, with the goal of being able to create a coherent updated release of the standard with as little delay as possible.
No given proposal has to reach a consensus for a release to be made. To avoid a potentially never-ending review the Maintenance Group will assess the state of proposals in the milestone after the first thirty days and decide whether to make a release of those proposals that had no controversy, or to wait long enough to include all of those that appear to have viable solutions to any problems that are identified in public review. The Maintenance Group may recommend that particularly complex or controversial issues to be solved within a Task Group chartered under the Darwin Core Maintenance or another Interest Group, either before public review, or as a result of public review.
Constructive comments and questions are welcome. These should be included in the relevant proposal (issue in Github) or through [email protected]. Providing assent is considered constructive. One way to do this is to use an emoticon reaction to the first comment in the issue. We can use this to gauge the relative level of interest in a proposal. Comments saying who you are and who you represent in your shared opinion are particularly useful. Dissenting opinions MUST be explained in a comment and MUST NOT be anonymous in order to be considered in the revision of the proposal and for the purpose of assessing consensus.
The proposals that pass review will be entered into a release candidate, which will be presented to the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Executive Committee as a comprehensive package. Any proposals not resolved and entered into the release candidate will be left open for further potential development. Proposals will be reviewed at least annually, and those that make no progress toward consensus may be dismissed by the Maintenance Group, though the record of discussions will be kept for future reference.
The role of the Executive Committee is to ensure that due process has been followed in the development of the candidate release and to endorse it officially as a vocabulary enhancement. The Executive Committee does not assess the merit of the proposals at this stage - their opportunity to do that is in the public review. The Executive Committee relies on the Technical Architecture Group to confirm that the technical aspects of proposals are clear, complete, and consistent with the overall activities of TDWG.
The Executive Committee will inform the Maintenance Group of its decision within 30 days of presentation for ratification. That decision may be to amend the submission or it might be to ratify the release. Any amendments are the responsibility of the Maintenance Group to make and resubmit to the Executive Committee. In the case of a decision to ratify the release, the Maintenance Group will modify all relevant documents, create the new release (see releases), and notify the Executive Committee, which will announce the successful update to the standard.