[tdwg-tapir] Darwin & RDF
Renato De Giovanni
renato at cria.org.br
Mon Apr 23 15:38:59 CEST 2007
Thanks for all feedback.
Since there seems to be no big difference between using hash or slash, I
took the liberty to change the Darwin namespaces by adding a slash in the
Although we could have different concept identifiers for RDF and TAPIR,
this could probably bring confusion in the future so I suggest we keep
them the same.
By using a slash, all concept identifiers for TAPIR remained the same and
we also followed one of the TAPIR recommendations: avoid using URL special
characters in concept identifiers. Otherwise we would need to escape them
all the time in TAPIR KVP requests.
So, the changes included:
* Darwin namespaces.
* TAPIR CNS file.
* All references to Darwin namespaces in output models and response
I also made a new minor release of TapirLink (0.3.1) that correctly
generates concept identifiers based on the new Darwin schemas.
All TAPIR providers that are using Darwin (core/extensions) as conceptual
schema will need to be reconfigured, regardless the software used.
Please let me know if you find anything wrong or missing.
> I agree that you need a hash in there - but you may consider a slash.
> This is a good account:
> It is actually about hosting RDF vocabs but it does cover hash vs
> slash namespaces and it may be worth looking through it before
> finally plumping for hashes just incase there is anything in there.
> The ontology is all # based.
> All the best,
> On 18 Apr 2007, at 21:32, Renato De Giovanni wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> This is clearly a crosscutting issue and I thought about using the
>> TAPIR mailing list for the following reasons:
>> 1) The main people involved with DarwinCore are subscribed here;
>> 2) This issue raised from a TAPIR use case;
>> 3) It can affect all existing TAPIR/DarwinCore providers, as well as
>> all output models based on DarwinCore.
>> As you know, there was a recent release of TapirLink which includes
>> an LSID authority that serves an RDF representation of DarwinCore by
>> Everything seems to be working fine, but when I parse the resulting
>> RDF in the W3C validator, I see that the predicates are being
>> displayed as:
>> While in the semantic world the "expected" representation would be
>> something like:
>> Apparently it seems just a cosmetic thing, but after some quick
>> research this "unexpected representation" can cause problems
>> depending on usage and tools: for instance, if it's necessary to
>> perform RDF/XML round-tripping, then semantic web tools may not work
>> if there's no clear separation between the namespace URI and local
>> names, which is normally done by using the fragment identifier.
>> If you're interested, you can find a similar discussion here:
>> Which has this interesting follow-up:
>> Since the new DarwinCore version and its extensions are not yet a
>> TDWG standard and may even be subject to other changes, I'm proposing
>> to add the fragment identifier to all Darwin namespaces. Better to do
>> this as soon as possible if we're going to need this in the future.
>> Please let me know if you have any comments, ideas or concerns...
>> It may be the case that this change will affect other things (like
>> the new GBIF REST service) although probably not as much as
>> TAPIR/DarwinCore providers which will need to re-map their databases.
>> Best Regards,
More information about the tdwg-tag