[tdwg-content] assertions in DwC terms

[Rutger Vos]

So would the solution be to import DwC into CDAO and make annotations
be (allowed to be) DwC terms?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Hilmar Lapp<hlapp at duke.edu> wrote:
> The current DwC Terms version (at
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/rdf/dwcterms.rdf) defines the domain for (at least
> some) object properties.
>
> Unless I am missing something this means that when I use DwC Terms for
> properties I implicitly assert the class of the subject, which means that
> either I can use DwC terms only for subjects of the type they are intended
> for (and why would one want to limit DwC's use in this way?), or reasoning
> based on RDF or OWL extractions of leads to problems.
>
> For example, in the Phenoscape project [1] we would like to link characters,
> states, or OTUs to the specimens based on which a systematist defined a (or
> all) character(s) or state(s). The specimens would be described in a NeXML
> document [2] with embedded RDFa annotation by institutionCode,
> collectionCode, and catalogNumber. The RDF extracted from that when run in a
> reasoner (which we will do) would implicitly assert that the specimen is a
> DwCTerms:Occurrence. Right now that probably doesn't hurt much in this case,
> but it might in the future, and I'm not sure what is gained from forcing
> those implicit assertions in the vocabulary.
>
> Should I post this as an issue to the tracker on Google Code, too?
>
>        -hilmar
>
> [1] http://phenoscape.org
> [2] http://nexml.org
>
> --
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Rutger A. Vos
Department of zoology
University of British Columbia
http://www.nexml.org
http://rutgervos.blogspot.com