noelc at OEB.HARVARD.EDU
Fri Nov 26 13:21:04 CET 1999
A few minor comments with regard to Jean-Marc's recent proposals which, on
the whole, I find intriguing:
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote:
> This feature-property-value triology is what I had in mind the first
> time I read about Delta.
> A few remarks:
> 1. the feature can be a hierarchy, like:
I wouldn't have thought that "density" would be the feature, but rather
the property, i.e.:
feature = leaf/lamina/abaxial_surface/vein_islands/indumentum
property = density
value = (some value)
> * we can turn the Flora of Australia GLOSSARY in a XML vocabulary in
> XML Schema or RDF Schema syntax; each glossary entry should be
> classified either as a feature, or a property, or a property-value;
Would properties be reified into features (as is done in RDF), or will
there be some other way to deal with properties of properties?
Intensifiers such as "very", for example.
> * the current type of characters of Delta (multistate=enumerate,
> integer, real numeric, text) will become type information for
> properties in our new Taxonomic XML Schema; there is a standard for
> data types in the 2nd part of W3C's XML Schema recommandation; we
> must avoid to re-invent the wheel;
Note: the XML Schema part 2 of November 1999 is a Working Draft, not even
a Proposed Recommendation, let a alone a Recommendation.
> * the proposed XDELTA format (http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccslrd/delta/)
> is too much a direct translation of a Delta file;
Of course, since its intent is to be a direct translation of the DELTA
format, this is not exactly a failing of the XDELTA format.
> * I propose to have 3 XML Namespaces for our different XML
> o biological descriptions (generalities)
> o botany
> o zoology
I'm sure you don't mean to leave out Mycology, Bryology, etc.
More information about the tdwg-content