Index Fungorum LSID server
Bob Morris
morris.bob at GMAIL.COM
Wed Apr 26 17:17:05 CEST 2006
There are some restrictions on the use of inverseOf if one desires to remain
within OWL-DL. I don't understand them.
1. Is there someone reading this who does, and can explain whether they are
germaine to this exchange?
2. Is it determined that an infrastructure constrained to OWL-DL is or is
not important? [If it is so determined, could someone please point me at the
discussion record?]
Bob
On 4/25/06, Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of inverseOf that we
> don't have to include the link, if follows from the property? Hence, if
> I say specimen x is a part of a taxon concept TC, then it follows that
> TC includes x, but I don't need an actual triple saying that.
>
> Hence, surely the point of ontologies is to free us from making the
> direct link? I've only advocated making the link within metadata for a
> single provider so we can do something without relying on ontologies at
> this stage.
>
> In terms of the cost of adding triples, I don't think it will be too
> large overall. For example if we have reciprocal links between
> specimens and taxa within a source database (i.e., actual triples), I
> suspect it won't add too much -- some taxa will have lots of specimens,
> but most will have very few (a power law kind of thing)..
>
> A good example of this is NCBI, where each sequence may have a link to
> the PubMed record for the paper in which they were published, and each
> PubMed record may list all the sequences published in that paper.
>
> Given that the community hasn't actually built much yet, I'm not
> worried about "splits". Let's make some stuff and see what happens --
> "suck it and see" is my maxim.
>
> Rod
>
>
> On 25 Apr 2006, at 09:35, Roger Hyam wrote:
>
> > Hi Rod,
> >
> > (Here I have switched from using reciprocal - which is confusing to
> > using the OWL terminology)
> >
> > I think my point is where do we draw the line in developing workable
> > ontologies. What rules do we have as to formally defined relationships?
> > Some properties should have inverseOf
> > ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#inverseOf)
> > properties
> > and some properties should not - but how do we decide which is which?
> >
> > Unless we have rules to apply then every time we want to create a new
> > relationship the community will split over whether the inverseOf
> > property should be defined or not.
> >
> > Any suggestions as to what the rules should be?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> > Roderic Page wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006, at 16:42, Roger Hyam wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The isBasionymOf property is an interesting one. This does not exist
> >>> in the current vocabulary because it is based on the schema version
> >>> of TCS. The thinking in TCS went that a name that is a basionym does
> >>> not 'know' that it is a basionym and therefore it would be wrong to
> >>> model this as a property of the object. There are many places where
> >>> this might be an issue. Does a specimen know that it is the type of a
> >>> name? Without the name it isn't a type.
> >>
> >> What about the relationship? From my perspective, it's useful to know
> >> that the original name for Eutypella ventricosa is Valsa ventricosa,
> >> and this is what I model using the predicate "hasBasionym". So it's a
> >> relationship, not a property of an object.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If you called an LSID for a specimen would you expect to be told
> >>> that the specimen was the type of a name? If we use Concise Bounded
> >>> Descriptions ( http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html) then we won't
> >>> know unless there is a triple with a subject of the specimen and an
> >>> object of the name (i.e. we have an isTypeSpecimenOf property or
> >>> similar). But logically where does this stop? We can't add reciprocal
> >>> properties to the object definition for everything that anyone may
> >>> say of it. If I define a taxon with a list of specimens I wouldn't
> >>> expect all the specimens to have reciprocal includedInTaxonConcept
> >>> links back to my object. It would be impossible in an open system
> >>> where some one else may own the record.
> >>
> >> No, we don't want reciprocal record for everything, but there are
> >> cases where it is useful, especially WITHIN a single source. For
> >> example, if I have access to all of IndexFungorum then I can run a
> >> query that discovers all the names for which Valsa ventricosa is the
> >> basionym. But if I don't have a copy of IndexFungorum, and I'm relying
> >> on the metadata attached to a LSID, then if the metadata for Valsa
> >> ventricosa has "isBasionnymOf" tags connecting it to all names for
> >> which it is a basionym, I can discover those names. More importantly,
> >> I can infer whether two names are synonyms (e.g., if two names share
> >> Valsa ventricosa as a basionym, then those names are synonyms).
> >> Without this, I'm stuck. I think what we need to consider is whether
> >> two names that are synonyms (or whatever relationship we are
> >> interested in) are "reachable", that is given the metadata for the
> >> names we can go from name A to B and visa versa. This is related to
> >> the concept of a "scutter" :
> >>
> >> "a scutter is simply a computer program that loads, parses, interprets
> >> and acts upon the contents of a Web of interconnected RDF/XML
> >> documents. In this sense it is just a Semantic Web variant on the old
> >> theme of distributed Web indexing, sometimes called a 'harvester',
> >> 'spider', or 'robot'. The links between RDF documents are usually, but
> >> not necessarily, expressed using RDF's 'rdfs:seeAlso' property." (see
> >> http://rdfweb.org/topic/Scutter)
> >>
> >> So, I think we gain a lot of power if our metadata is sufficiently
> >> linked to support a scutter. For example, given metadata for a PubMed
> >> publication, we could get to sequences, via that to taxa (including
> >> names in numerous databases via LinkOut), to specimens, and so on, all
> >> via metadata. Indeed, one could let a scutter loose and aggregate data
> >> a la Google -- who needs GBIF anyway ;-).
> >>
> >> In fact, this would be a cool challenge. Start a scutter and see what
> >> can be retrieved.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I am thinking aloud here but we have to be very careful in adding
> >>> things to vocabularies - even when they seem really useful.
> >>> Ultimately if a client wants to know everything about a object that a
> >>> data source has it will have to ask the "Give me all the things that
> >>> refer to X" question. Either that or we have to guarantee that all
> >>> links are always reciprocal - which we can't.
> >>
> >> No, you don't have to guarantee links are reciprocal, but you do want
> >> some degree of reachability -- that I can get from one object to
> >> another. If we aggregate everything into one central repository (a la
> >> Google indexing the web) then this isn't an issue, but it is if we
> >> don't. I agree that for some things we don't want to have reciprocal
> >> links -- but I'd suggest we'd need to think seriously about supporting
> >> basic search. As you point out, we need to support the "Give me all
> >> the things that refer to X" question.
> >>
> >> Ultimately, I think we can't ignore search, or perhaps more generally
> >> "finability" (which depends on things being linked). See the wonderful
> >> book "Ambient Findability" by Peter Morville
> >> (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ambient/). If we don't make our stuff
> >> findable, we are wasting our time.
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand things that are in people's data bases that are
> >>> easy to pass should perhaps be represented in an ontology - if they
> >>> are useful.
> >>>
> >>> Well done for another LSID authority Kevin.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>>
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kevin Richards wrote:Thanks for those comments Rod.
> >>>> As you have seen this is an initial attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The syntax
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
> >>>>>> <rdf:Description
> >>>>>> rdf:about="urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860" />
> >>>>>> </TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> strikes me as odd.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> This is due to an accidental omission of the RDF entity type of the
> >>>> basionym object. Will fix this.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I also suggest that urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860 has a
> >>>>>> complementary tag such as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <TaxonNames:isBasionymOf rdf:resource =
> >>>>>> "urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names: 213649" />
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Godd idea. The fields are based on the initial implementation of
> >>>> TCS-RDF that Roger completed, and as he said, it is not a complete
> >>>> schema at this stage. BTW the reverse RDF pointers can be viewed
> >>>> using
> >>>> launchpad by going into the launchpad settings and turning on 'Show
> >>>> back
> >>>> links'.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The attribute
> >>>>>> TaxonNames:nomenclaturalCode=" http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/
> >>>>>> TaxonNames/
> >>>>>> NomenclaturalCode/#botanical" of the tag <TaxonNames:TaxonName> is
> >>>>>> problematic. Firstly, I don't know why this is an attribute rather
> >>>>>>
> >>>> than
> >>>>
> >>>>>> just another tag,
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Due to my lack of understanding of RDF and when to use attributes as
> >>>> opposed to tags - I was blindly following an example.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> and the URI
> >>>>>> http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/NomenclaturalCode/#botanical
> >>>>>> returns a 404. If this is just a made up URI then this is bad --
> >>>>>>
> >>>> EVERY
> >>>>
> >>>>>> URI in an RDF document must be real -- unlike XML schema where any
> >>>>>>
> >>>> old
> >>>>
> >>>>>> rubbish can be used.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Also due to the prototyping stage of this 'project'. Will be fixed
> >>>> by
> >>>> online TDWG ontologies at some stage I assume?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> <TaxonNames:publishedIn><i>Syll. fung.</i> (Abellini)
> >>>>>> <b>1</b>: 148 (1882) (1882)</TaxonNames:publishedIn>
> >>>>>> has formatting information (the <i></i> and <b></b> tags). I think
> >>>>>>
> >>>> this
> >>>>
> >>>>>> is in principle a bad thing(TM)
> >>>>>>
> >>>> We debated this a little and decided to leave the field text the
> >>>> same as
> >>>> has been returned by other services of IndexFungorum. But you have
> >>>> a
> >>>> good point and it is something we will need to discuss further in
> >>>> future.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kevin
> >>>>
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> ++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or
> >>>> privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to
> >>>> be read,
> >>>> used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If
> >>>> you are
> >>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email
> >>>> and
> >>>> delete this message and any attachments.
> >>>>
> >>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not
> >>>> necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research.
> >>>>
> >>>> Landcare Research
> >>>> http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> ++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------
> >>> Roger Hyam
> >>> Technical Architect
> >>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> >>> -------------------------------------
> >>> http://www.tdwg.org
> >>> roger at tdwg.org
> >>> +44 1578 722782
> >>> -------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> >> Editor, Systematic Biology
> >> DEEB, IBLS
> >> Graham Kerr Building
> >> University of Glasgow
> >> Glasgow G12 8QP
> >> United Kingdom
> >>
> >> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
> >> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> >> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> >> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> >> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
> >>
> >> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> >> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
> >> Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/>
> >> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
> >> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________________________________
> >> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> >> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > Roger Hyam
> > Technical Architect
> > Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> > -------------------------------------
> > http://www.tdwg.org
> > roger at tdwg.org
> > +44 1578 722782
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> Editor, Systematic Biology
> DEEB, IBLS
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QP
> United Kingdom
>
> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>
> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
> Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/>
> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! For Good - Sponsor a London Marathon runner - http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/charity/london-marathon
>
>
------=_Part_15297_12692761.1146086225328
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
There are some restrictions on the use of inverseOf if one desires to remain within OWL-DL. I don't understand them.<br><br>1. Is there someone reading this who does, and can explain whether they are germaine to this exchange?
<br>2. Is it determined that an infrastructure constrained to OWL-DL is or is not important? [If it is so determined, could someone please point me at the discussion record?]<br><br>Bob<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 4/25/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Roderic Page</b> <<a href="mailto:r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of inverseOf that we<br>don't have to include the link, if follows from the property? Hence, if<br>I say specimen x is a part of a taxon concept TC, then it follows that<br>
TC includes x, but I don't need an actual triple saying that.<br><br>Hence, surely the point of ontologies is to free us from making the<br>direct link? I've only advocated making the link within metadata for a<br>single provider so we can do something without relying on ontologies at
<br>this stage.<br><br>In terms of the cost of adding triples, I don't think it will be too<br>large overall. For example if we have reciprocal links between<br>specimens and taxa within a source database (i.e., actual triples), I
<br>suspect it won't add too much -- some taxa will have lots of specimens,<br>but most will have very few (a power law kind of thing)..<br><br>A good example of this is NCBI, where each sequence may have a link to<br>the PubMed record for the paper in which they were published, and each
<br>PubMed record may list all the sequences published in that paper.<br><br>Given that the community hasn't actually built much yet, I'm not<br>worried about "splits". Let's make some stuff and see what happens --
<br>"suck it and see" is my maxim.<br><br>Rod<br><br><br>On 25 Apr 2006, at 09:35, Roger Hyam wrote:<br><br>> Hi Rod,<br>><br>> (Here I have switched from using reciprocal - which is confusing to<br>> using the OWL terminology)
<br>><br>> I think my point is where do we draw the line in developing workable<br>> ontologies. What rules do we have as to formally defined relationships?<br>> Some properties should have inverseOf<br>> (
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#inverseOf" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#inverseOf</a>)<br>> properties
<br>> and some properties should not - but how do we decide which is which?
<br>><br>> Unless we have rules to apply then every time we want to create a new<br>> relationship the community will split over whether the inverseOf<br>> property should be defined or not.<br>><br>> Any suggestions as to what the rules should be?
<br>><br>> Cheers,<br>><br>> Roger<br>><br>><br>> Roderic Page wrote:<br>>> On 24 Apr 2006, at 16:42, Roger Hyam wrote:<br>>><br>>>><br>>>> The isBasionymOf property is an interesting one. This does not exist
<br>>>> in the current vocabulary because it is based on the schema version<br>>>> of TCS. The thinking in TCS went that a name that is a basionym does<br>>>> not 'know' that it is a basionym and therefore it would be wrong to
<br>>>> model this as a property of the object. There are many places where<br>>>> this might be an issue. Does a specimen know that it is the type of a<br>>>> name? Without the name it isn't a type.
<br>>><br>>> What about the relationship? From my perspective, it's useful to know<br>>> that the original name for Eutypella ventricosa is Valsa ventricosa,<br>>> and this is what I model using the predicate "hasBasionym". So it's a
<br>>> relationship, not a property of an object.<br>>><br>>>><br>>>> If you called an LSID for a specimen would you expect to be told<br>>>> that the specimen was the type of a name? If we use Concise Bounded
<br>>>> Descriptions ( <a href="http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html</a>) then we won't<br>>>> know unless there is a triple with a subject of the specimen and an
<br>
>>> object of the name (i.e. we have an isTypeSpecimenOf property or<br>>>> similar). But logically where does this stop? We can't add reciprocal<br>>>> properties to the object definition for everything that anyone may
<br>>>> say of it. If I define a taxon with a list of specimens I wouldn't<br>>>> expect all the specimens to have reciprocal includedInTaxonConcept<br>>>> links back to my object. It would be impossible in an open system
<br>>>> where some one else may own the record.<br>>><br>>> No, we don't want reciprocal record for everything, but there are<br>>> cases where it is useful, especially WITHIN a single source. For
<br>>> example, if I have access to all of IndexFungorum then I can run a<br>>> query that discovers all the names for which Valsa ventricosa is the<br>>> basionym. But if I don't have a copy of IndexFungorum, and I'm relying
<br>>> on the metadata attached to a LSID, then if the metadata for Valsa<br>>> ventricosa has "isBasionnymOf" tags connecting it to all names for<br>>> which it is a basionym, I can discover those names. More importantly,
<br>>> I can infer whether two names are synonyms (e.g., if two names share<br>>> Valsa ventricosa as a basionym, then those names are synonyms).<br>>> Without this, I'm stuck. I think what we need to consider is whether
<br>>> two names that are synonyms (or whatever relationship we are<br>>> interested in) are "reachable", that is given the metadata for the<br>>> names we can go from name A to B and visa versa. This is related to
<br>>> the concept of a "scutter" :<br>>><br>>> "a scutter is simply a computer program that loads, parses, interprets<br>>> and acts upon the contents of a Web of interconnected RDF/XML
<br>>> documents. In this sense it is just a Semantic Web variant on the old<br>>> theme of distributed Web indexing, sometimes called a 'harvester',<br>>> 'spider', or 'robot'. The links between RDF documents are usually, but
<br>>> not necessarily, expressed using RDF's 'rdfs:seeAlso' property." (see<br>>> <a href="http://rdfweb.org/topic/Scutter" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://rdfweb.org/topic/Scutter
</a>)<br>>><br>>> So, I think we gain a lot of power if our metadata is sufficiently
<br>>> linked to support a scutter. For example, given metadata for a PubMed<br>>> publication, we could get to sequences, via that to taxa (including<br>>> names in numerous databases via LinkOut), to specimens, and so on, all
<br>>> via metadata. Indeed, one could let a scutter loose and aggregate data<br>>> a la Google -- who needs GBIF anyway ;-).<br>>><br>>> In fact, this would be a cool challenge. Start a scutter and see what
<br>>> can be retrieved.<br>>><br>>>><br>>>> I am thinking aloud here but we have to be very careful in adding<br>>>> things to vocabularies - even when they seem really useful.<br>
>>> Ultimately if a client wants to know everything about a object that a<br>>>> data source has it will have to ask the "Give me all the things that<br>>>> refer to X" question. Either that or we have to guarantee that all
<br>>>> links are always reciprocal - which we can't.<br>>><br>>> No, you don't have to guarantee links are reciprocal, but you do want<br>>> some degree of reachability -- that I can get from one object to
<br>>> another. If we aggregate everything into one central repository (a la<br>>> Google indexing the web) then this isn't an issue, but it is if we<br>>> don't. I agree that for some things we don't want to have reciprocal
<br>>> links -- but I'd suggest we'd need to think seriously about supporting<br>>> basic search. As you point out, we need to support the "Give me all<br>>> the things that refer to X" question.
<br>>><br>>> Ultimately, I think we can't ignore search, or perhaps more generally<br>>> "finability" (which depends on things being linked). See the wonderful<br>>> book "Ambient Findability" by Peter Morville
<br>>> (<a href="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ambient/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ambient/</a>). If we don't make our stuff<br>>> findable, we are wasting our time.
<br>>><br>>> Rod<br>>>
<br>>>><br>>>> On the other hand things that are in people's data bases that are<br>>>> easy to pass should perhaps be represented in an ontology - if they<br>>>> are useful.<br>>>>
<br>>>> Well done for another LSID authority Kevin.<br>>>><br>>>> All the best,<br>>>><br>>>> Roger<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> Kevin Richards wrote:Thanks for those comments Rod.
<br>>>>> As you have seen this is an initial attempt.<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>>> The syntax<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> <TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
<br>>>>>>> <rdf:Description<br>>>>>>> rdf:about="urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860" /><br>>>>>>> </TaxonNames:hasBasionym><br>
>>>>>>
<br>>>>>>> strikes me as odd.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> This is due to an accidental omission of the RDF entity type of the<br>>>>> basionym object. Will fix this.<br>
>>>>
<br>>>>><br>>>>>>> I also suggest that urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860 has a<br>>>>>>> complementary tag such as<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> <TaxonNames:isBasionymOf rdf:resource =
<br>>>>>>> "urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names: 213649" /><br>>>>>>><br>>>>> Godd idea. The fields are based on the initial implementation of<br>>>>> TCS-RDF that Roger completed, and as he said, it is not a complete
<br>>>>> schema at this stage. BTW the reverse RDF pointers can be viewed<br>>>>> using<br>>>>> launchpad by going into the launchpad settings and turning on 'Show<br>>>>> back
<br>>>>> links'.<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>>> The attribute<br>>>>>>> TaxonNames:nomenclaturalCode="<a href="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/</a><br>>>>>>> TaxonNames/<br>>>>>>> NomenclaturalCode/#botanical" of the tag <TaxonNames:TaxonName> is<br>>>>>>> problematic. Firstly, I don't know why this is an attribute rather
<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> than<br>>>>><br>>>>>>> just another tag,<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> Due to my lack of understanding of RDF and when to use attributes as
<br>>>>> opposed to tags - I was blindly following an example.<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>>> and the URI<br>>>>>>> <a href="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/NomenclaturalCode/#botanical" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/NomenclaturalCode/#botanical</a><br>>>>>>> returns a 404. If this is just a made up URI then this is bad --<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> EVERY<br>
>>>><br>>>>>>> URI in an RDF document must be real -- unlike XML schema where any<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> old<br>>>>><br>>>>>>> rubbish can be used.
<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> Also due to the prototyping stage of this 'project'. Will be fixed<br>>>>> by<br>>>>> online TDWG ontologies at some stage I assume?<br>>>>>
<br>>>>><br>>>>>>> <TaxonNames:publishedIn><i>Syll. fung.</i> (Abellini)<br>>>>>>> <b>1</b>: 148 (1882) (1882)</TaxonNames:publishedIn>
<br>>>>>>> has formatting information (the <i></i> and <b></b> tags). I think<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> this<br>>>>><br>>>>>>> is in principle a bad thing(TM)
<br>>>>>>><br>>>>> We debated this a little and decided to leave the field text the<br>>>>> same as<br>>>>> has been returned by other services of IndexFungorum. But you have
<br>>>>> a<br>>>>> good point and it is something we will need to discuss further in<br>>>>> future.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Kevin<br>>>>><br>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<br>>>>> ++++++++<br>>>>><br>>>>> WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or<br>>>>> privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to
<br>>>>> be read,<br>>>>> used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If<br>>>>> you are<br>>>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email
<br>>>>> and<br>>>>> delete this message and any attachments.<br>>>>><br>>>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not<br>>>>> necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research.
<br>>>>><br>>>>> Landcare Research<br>>>>> <a href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
</a><br>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<br>>>>> ++++++++<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> --<br>>>><br>>>> -------------------------------------<br>>>> Roger Hyam
<br>>>> Technical Architect<br>>>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group<br>>>> -------------------------------------<br>>>> <a href="http://www.tdwg.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.tdwg.org</a><br>>>>
<a href="mailto:roger at tdwg.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">roger at tdwg.org</a><br>>>> +44 1578 722782<br>>>> -------------------------------------<br>>>>
<br>>>><br>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>>> ------------------------------------------<br>>><br>>> Professor Roderic D. M. Page<br>>> Editor, Systematic Biology<br>>> DEEB, IBLS<br>>> Graham Kerr Building<br>>> University of Glasgow
<br>>> Glasgow G12 8QP<br>>> United Kingdom<br>>><br>>> Phone: +44 141 330 4778<br>>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792<br>>> email: <a href="mailto:r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
</a><br>>> web: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</a><br>>> reprints:
<a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
</a><br>>><br>>> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic<br>>> Biologists Website: <a href="http://systematicbiology.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://systematicbiology.org</a><br>>> Search for taxon names:
<a href="http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/</a><br>>> Find out what we know about a species:
<a href="http://ispecies.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://ispecies.org</a><br>>> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics:
<a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://iphylo.blogspot.com</a><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> ___________________________________________________________
<br>>> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
<br>>> voicemail <a href="http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com</a><br>>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>> -------------------------------------
<br>> Roger Hyam<br>> Technical Architect
<br>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group<br>> -------------------------------------<br>> <a href="http://www.tdwg.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.tdwg.org</a>
<br>> <a href="mailto:roger at tdwg.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">roger at tdwg.org</a><br>> +44 1578 722782
<br>> -------------------------------------<br>><br>><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>----------------------------------------<br>Professor Roderic D. M. Page<br>Editor, Systematic Biology
<br>DEEB, IBLS<br>Graham Kerr Building<br>University of Glasgow<br>Glasgow G12 8QP<br>United Kingdom<br><br>Phone: +44 141 330 4778<br>Fax: +44 141 330 2792<br>email: <a href="mailto:r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
</a><br>web: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</a><br>reprints: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
</a><br><br>Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic<br>Biologists Website: <a href="http://systematicbiology.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://systematicbiology.org
</a><br>Search for taxon names: <a href="http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/</a><br>Find out what we know about a species: <a href="http://ispecies.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://ispecies.org</a><br>
Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://iphylo.blogspot.com
</a><br><br><br><br><br>___________________________________________________________<br>Yahoo! For Good - Sponsor a London Marathon runner - <a href="http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/charity/london-marathon" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/charity/london-marathon
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list