Task group?

[jar398]

I get the impression that there is interest in preparing some kind of document or specification. Sorry to be a noodge but where is the effort described? Has a task group been chartered for this purpose?

[baskaufs]

Check with @nielsklazenga about this. There is a document being developed, but it's a Google Doc. Niels can connect you to it.

[jar398]

I was wondering about the task group itself, not the document. The task group needs an executive committee approved charter in order for it to be a TDWG task group, and only task groups can create TDWG 'products'.

[baskaufs]

Just a bit of technical clarification about process here. With respect to creating new standards, it is true that a Task Group is required. See this page for a summary. However, a task group is not necessarily required for the development of new documents related to an existing vocabulary standard. See Section 3.4.4 of the VMS. The intent of that section was to give the Maintenance Group some latitude in the process. The primary consideration for all changes related to a vocabulary standard is that the extent to which the full change process is required depends on how likely the changes are to impact the stability of the standard. The more impact, the more community input and executive oversight is required.

That approach came about out of the experience with the ratification of the Darwin Core RDF Guide, whose addition to Darwin Core was held up for about a year because nobody knew what the process was (it was not a new standard and therefore was not governed by the new standards process). A major theme of the VMS is that the Maintenance Group bears primary responsibility for decision-making about processes involved in maintaining the standard.

In the case of the creation of TCS 2.0, it's a bit less clear. TCS 1.0 is a ratified standard, but it's pre-modern and does not have the features of "modern" TDWG vocabularies like Darwin and Audubon Cores. It also does not have a Maintenance Group. So the process related to its revision is a bit murky. I think that the overriding consideration here is that the process be public and open. I've found that to be the case with the TNC group so far and have had no problem lurking at meetings to keep track of what's going on.

[nielsklazenga]

Probably as good a time as ever to try to resolve the murkiness and hopefully avoid the delays that the Darwin Core RDF Guide experienced. It is not that hard to establish a task group, so, if that makes things clearer, maybe we should just do that. With the understanding that, until the new standard is ratified (or at least the process has started), the interest group doesn't do anything else.

We are actually staying very close to TCS, at least with respect to definitions, but, since we renamed Taxon Concept, we can hardly call it TCS anymore. What we are making is definitely the successor to TCS, but whether it is a new standard or a new version doesn't really matter. And I think it should have the review process as if it is a new standard, as I think that might promote user acceptance.

[jar398]

@deepreef Ultimately I'm also more interested in understanding and improving "the intersection between taxonomic process and informatics", and the process question is two steps removed from this. I think that working out good exchange formats (vocabularies) is informatics, so I want exchange formats as a way to drive the conversation forward. And I think process is the best way to get to exchange formats, since otherwise we just meander and quibble endlessly. I was seriously bothered by Darwin Core and DwCA when they came out, but now see that we really are dealing mostly with CSV files, and despite its imperfections DwC has been a huge step forward. Now I'd like to see something similar happen for alignments, patches, and so on, which depend on inferring or hypothesizing or asserting equations of meaning between rows in checklists / taxonomies. (Reasoning about nomenclature is important too, since that is part of our raw material.) That is why I care about process. The discussion in this group, from my point of view (that of someone lacking context - I'm responsible for too much disruption), seems a bit unfocused. A task group charter stating, in public, what needs to be accomplished, would help provide focus since it would let us exclude any line of disucssion or speculation that does not bear on producing the document we're seeking.

@nielsklazenga I think it should be difficult to establish a task group. At W3C they are called working groups and the bar is very high (https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#GroupsWG). Here we may not have the resources to apply such a high bar, but having a clear, concrete statement of the purpose of the document and its success conditions, is one I think will save us from many headaches in the future. Theory is something one develops as a means to an end.

[jar398]

~@baskaufs I am repeating a little bit of what you said in #12 because it bears on this issue: " With respect to creating new standards, it is true that a Task Group is required. ... However, a task group is not necessarily required for the development of new documents related to an existing vocabulary standard. ... TCS 1.0 is a ratified standard" and it's possible we need a maintenance group instead (if the current effort should be seen as extending or clarifying TCS 1.0) rather than a task group. This is a good point.~

[jar398]

oops! You were already here. Will delete

[jar398]

I'd be happy to help with a TG (or MG ?) charter but feel I don't have enough context to initiate. I can react or build on someone else's draft, so looking forward to whatever @nielsklazenga or anyone else puts forward.

[nielsklazenga]

@jar398 I will try to create a straw man.

[nielsklazenga]

At yesterday's TNC meeting we decided to propose to the TDWG executive that the TNC IG become the TCS Maintenance Group. At the same time we'll propose a TCS 2 Task Group. The task for this group will be to bring TCS in line with the Standards Documentation Standard restricting itself to what is already in TCS 1, except for the relatively minor changes that we already decided on in our review last year. I will write drafts for the two charters for sharing with the group in the coming few weeks.

[jar398]

Is the ball still in my court on this one? The above plan (a TCS 2 document restricted to TCS 1 but in 'modern' style) sounds good to me. The TG charter - which will be brief, I think - should be placed in this code repository since it will be our best shot at keeping the effort honest and bounded. :)

[nielsklazenga]

We have the TG charter ready to go, but are waiting for the TDWG Executive to approve the Maintenance Group proposal. I will chase that up before our next meeting.

I was going to put the charters on in the GitHub repository when they were approved, but, since it is taking some time, I see no reason not to do that right now, so I will do that.

[nielsklazenga]

https://github.com/tdwg/tnc/blob/master/charters/tcs-2-task-group-charter.md

Changes to this document, apart from simple corrections, should from now on be made using pull requests.

[nielsklazenga]

Closing this, as Task Group has been approved.