RDF/architecture/ontology - migration

Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller at MOBOT.ORG
Mon Nov 21 15:12:54 CET 2005


Do we want GUIDs that are dependent upon a specific protocol or schema?

Seems like the ideal would be an approach that disconnects them so that the
decisions for GUIDs and for protocols and schemas can be made separately.

>>>From what I've been hearing so far the GUID is embedded inside of something
else, like LSID or DOI.  That is, the unique identifier part is wrapped
inside something that is understandable only by a specific protocol or
locating mechanism.  Is this unavoidable?

Chuck

Chuck Miller
Chief Information Officer
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63119

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Hyam [mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:40 AM
To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - migration

This is carrying on from Steve's comments under the "Taxon debate
synthesis?" thread. I started a new thread as it seemed to be getting a
little deep and no longer fitting the title.

Steve's comments are hitting the nail right on the head. From the
conversations and thoughts I am having about architecture of TDWG
standards all roads are leading to RDF - which is annoying because it
makes writing balanced documents that compare the alternatives difficult :)

Steve outlined one of the most promising  paths forward for TDWG
standards. Taking this route is not a matter of just saying "lets do it
all in RDF" there would be a long way to go if we went this way - but at
least we would be doing things the same way the rest of the semantic web
world and that means there are tools and people out there to help.

The one point Steve didn't stress is that RDF is the "bees knees" for
data handshaking - i.e. combining data from different domains. This
means that the extensibility and version problems that are our main
hurdles as the moment will tend to go away. But have no fear there will
be other problems to replace them.

I am comfortable talking about GUIDs in terms of moving towards
representing TDWG data in RDF. It certainly makes more sense of the GUID
discussions to me. But...

What we need to bear in mind is that there is a great deal of knowledge
captured in  XML Schema within the TDWG community and that knowledge (or
at least the good bits of it) need to be migrated forwards. People have
also invested a great deal of effort in developing XML Schemas and may
be reluctant to move on.

This is all leading to TAG stuff rather than GUID stuff but as Steve and
Rod and others point out the two are very closely connected - along with
the protocol stuff...

How much should the GUID debate assume that we are using current XML
Schema based standards and how much should it assume a move to an RDF
style approach - or doesn't it matter?

Roger

--

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger at tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5EEE0.56E31B78
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - migration</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Do we want GUIDs that are dependent upon a specific =
protocol or schema? </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Seems like the ideal would be an approach that =
disconnects them so that the decisions for GUIDs and for protocols and =
schemas can be made separately.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>From what I've been hearing so far the GUID is =
embedded inside of something else, like LSID or DOI.&nbsp; That is, the =
unique identifier part is wrapped inside something that is =
understandable only by a specific protocol or locating mechanism.&nbsp; =
Is this unavoidable?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chuck</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chuck Miller</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chief Information Officer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Missouri Botanical Garden</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>4344 Shaw Blvd</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>St. Louis, MO 63119&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Roger Hyam [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG">mailto:roger at TDWG.ORG</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:40 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: [TDWG-GUID] RDF/architecture/ontology - =
migration</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is carrying on from Steve's comments under the =
&quot;Taxon debate</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>synthesis?&quot; thread. I started a new thread as =
it seemed to be getting a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>little deep and no longer fitting the title.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Steve's comments are hitting the nail right on the =
head. From the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conversations and thoughts I am having about =
architecture of TDWG</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>standards all roads are leading to RDF - which is =
annoying because it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>makes writing balanced documents that compare the =
alternatives difficult :)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Steve outlined one of the most promising&nbsp; paths =
forward for TDWG</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>standards. Taking this route is not a matter of just =
saying &quot;lets do it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>all in RDF&quot; there would be a long way to go if =
we went this way - but at</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>least we would be doing things the same way the rest =
of the semantic web</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>world and that means there are tools and people out =
there to help.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The one point Steve didn't stress is that RDF is the =
&quot;bees knees&quot; for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>data handshaking - i.e. combining data from =
different domains. This</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>means that the extensibility and version problems =
that are our main</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>hurdles as the moment will tend to go away. But have =
no fear there will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>be other problems to replace them.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am comfortable talking about GUIDs in terms of =
moving towards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>representing TDWG data in RDF. It certainly makes =
more sense of the GUID</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>discussions to me. But...</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What we need to bear in mind is that there is a great =
deal of knowledge</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>captured in&nbsp; XML Schema within the TDWG =
community and that knowledge (or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>at least the good bits of it) need to be migrated =
forwards. People have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>also invested a great deal of effort in developing =
XML Schemas and may</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>be reluctant to move on.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is all leading to TAG stuff rather than GUID =
stuff but as Steve and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Rod and others point out the two are very closely =
connected - along with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the protocol stuff...</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>How much should the GUID debate assume that we are =
using current XML</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Schema based standards and how much should it assume =
a move to an RDF</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>style approach - or doesn't it matter?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Roger</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;Roger Hyam</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;Technical Architect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;Taxonomic Databases Working Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;<A HREF=3D"http://www.tdwg.org" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.tdwg.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;roger at tdwg.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;+44 1578 722782</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-------------------------------------</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>


More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list