<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Rich,<br>
<br>
I would also like to see this conversation continue, although like you,
I'm not sure about the venue and strategy. I suspect that we are close
to saturating the tdwg-content email list - at a certain level of
traffic, some subscribers start to zone out. I think this discussion
would be appropriate on the RDF Task Group (technically RDF/OWL Task
Group) email list, although ontology development doesn't have to be
done in OWL and data models don't have to be expressed as RDF. It's my
understanding that the RDF TG has been charged with "examining the
implications of adding new classes to the Darwin Core Type Vocabulary
in the broader context of clarification of the relationships among
classes in the biodiversity realm" (see Background at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/">http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/</a> ), which sounds a lot like just what
we've been talking about. <br>
<br>
The RDF TG has a functioning Wiki and email infrastructure as well as
Subversion capabilities and a couple RDF sandboxes for testing. Also,
a subset of the TG members/subscribers (not including me) are OBO
Ontology/BioPortal savy. The disadvantage of moving the discussion to
the RDF TG email list is that it might exclude people with data
modeling experience who are on tdwg-content, but not on the RDF TG
email list (but anyone who is interested can be added to the email
list). <br>
<br>
Alternatively, the discussion could just continue here...<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
Richard Pyle wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:006901ce5e4c$9d8aae40$d8a00ac0$@bishopmuseum.org"
type="cite"><!----><br>
<pre wrap="">OK, I think this is an extremely important point. So, I guess the question
is: which should we focus on? Data model, or ontology? The obvious answer
is "Both". However, if it is "Both", then the historical trend is that one
class of people tend to converge around the ontology, and another class of
people tend to converge around the data model (both classes being subclasses
of the superclass "biodiversityDataNerd") -- which is sort of the
predicament we're in right now. My earlier comment about moving the center
of mass of the discussion was an effort to build some bridges between these
two currently largely non-connected) conversations.
I have a lot of experience thinking about data models, and a lot to
contribute on that topic. I have very little experience thinking about
ontologies, and very little to contribute on that topic (my definition of
"ontology" is the one Roger Hyam showed at TDWG a few years ago: "Ontology:
blah blah blah"). But I also recognize the strong need for these groups to
co-mingle more than they have been. We definitely need an ontology to allow
reasoning across the information stored in our data models; but it's not
unusual for me to see pieces of biodiversity ontologies that could have
benefitted from some better insight on how the biodiversity data are modeled
(though this may have been limited to early biodiversity ontology efforts --
I haven't kept up lately).
All of this rambling to ask: What do we do next? Do we need to stop talking
about DWC and start talking about..... what? Data Modeling? Ontology? Both?
Separately? Concurrently? On this list? On a Wiki somewhere...? I really
have no idea or opinion about where we go from here -- as long as it's not
the same old circular conversation (also, I'd rather it not be "nowhere").
Aloha,
Rich
.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>