[tdwg-tapir] Darwin & RDF

[Roger Hyam]

I agree that you need a hash in there - but you may consider a slash.

This is a good account:

http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/

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,

Roger



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
> default.
>
> 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:
>
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcoreGenus
>
> While in the semantic world the "expected" representation would be
> something like:
>
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcore#Genus
>
> 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:
> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16476.html
>
> Which has this interesting follow-up:
> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16480.html
>
> 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,
> --
> Renato
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir