(XML) feature-property-value
Jean-Marc Vanel
jmvanel at FREE.FR
Fri Nov 26 10:11:03 CET 1999
I saw this in:
Minutes of the Subgroup "Structure of descriptive data" workshop at
TDWG 1999 in Harvard
Diederich's "Basic properties"
General agreement was reached that a direct application of the
"structure-property-value" model would be too restrictive,
applicable
mainly to morphological descriptions. A more general model,
including
cultural/physiological and molecular descriptions should be
developed. The term "feature" was proposed as a more general
replacement for structure.
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:
leaf/lamina/abaxial_surface/vein_islands/indumentum/density
* the property can default to an "unnamed property", that is a
textual content for the feature as a whole; this allows to import
directly floristic descriptions, see
http://jmvanel.free.fr/Samples/parsing.htm;
* 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;
* the current characters of Delta are in fact feature-property
couples;
* 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;
* the proposed XDELTA format (http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccslrd/delta/)
is too much a direct translation of a Delta file;
* I propose to have 3 XML Namespaces for our different XML
vocabularies:
o biological descriptions (generalities)
o botany
o zoology
* XML Namespaces are important to avoid name clashes, they will allow
us to mix in descriptions or reports with other vocabularies from
other origins, like biochemical, paleontological, ecological,
phytosociological, pedological, climatic, agronomic, plant uses,
ethnobotany, etc... (again avoid re-invent the wheel)
All together this is a sound and state-of-the-art XML foundation; of
course a lot of details are left.
Cheers
JMV
--------------8D443EAF9B39EC12915BD4A4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I saw this in:
<p>Minutes of the Subgroup "Structure of descriptive data" workshop at
<br>TDWG 1999 in Harvard
<blockquote>Diederich's "Basic properties"
<br>General agreement was reached that a direct application of the
<br>"structure-property-value" model would be too restrictive, applicable
<br>mainly to morphological descriptions. A more general model, including
<br>cultural/physiological and molecular descriptions should be
<br>developed. The term "feature" was proposed as a more general
<br>replacement for structure.</blockquote>
This feature-property-value triology is what I had in mind the first time
I read about Delta.
<br>A few remarks:
<ol>
<li>
the feature can be a hierarchy, like:</li>
</ol>
leaf/lamina/abaxial_surface/vein_islands/indumentum/density
<ul>
<li>
the property can default to an "unnamed property", that is a textual content
for the feature as a whole; this allows to import directly floristic descriptions,
see <a href="http://jmvanel.free.fr/Samples/parsing.htm">http://jmvanel.free.fr/Samples/parsing.htm</a>;</li>
<li>
we can turn the <a href="http://www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/flora/webpubl/glossary.htm">Flora
of Australia GLOSSARY</a> 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;</li>
<li>
the current characters of Delta are in fact feature-property couples;</li>
<li>
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;</li>
<li>
the proposed XDELTA format (<a href="http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccslrd/delta/">http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccslrd/delta/</a>)
is too much a direct translation of a Delta file;</li>
<li>
I propose to have 3 XML Namespaces for our different XML vocabularies:</li>
<ul>
<li>
biological descriptions (generalities)</li>
<li>
botany</li>
<li>
zoology</li>
</ul>
<li>
XML Namespaces are important to avoid name clashes, they will allow us
to mix in descriptions or reports with other vocabularies from other origins,
like biochemical, paleontological, ecological, phytosociological,
pedological, climatic, agronomic, plant uses, ethnobotany, etc... (again
avoid re-invent the wheel)</li>
</ul>
All together this is a sound and state-of-the-art XML foundation; of course
a lot of details are left.
<p>Cheers
<p>JMV</html>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list