<!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">
<br>
Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
In the not very comforting words of software vendors these are "known
issues" and will be resolved in the next release ;)<br>
<br>
But seriously.The namespaces in the TCS names vocabulary do not resolve
because we didn't have a policy at that time. The use if entity
references was 'borrowed' from an example (probably Protege output) and
I wouldn't mind doing away with it.<br>
<br>
I have been thinking long and hard about the namespace issues in the
last few weeks and believe I have a solution that I will propose at
TDWG St Louis. It would be good to have face to face discussions about
it and make a decision there.<br>
<br>
To briefly summarize: The issue is getting a namespace convention that
will work across technologies. Suppose we want to serve data in a
technology that "isn't very good at namespaces". As an example - if we
were to have separate namespaces for TaxonNames, TaxonConcepts,
Specimens, Metadata, GeospatialStuff, Collections and we wanted to
validate a document using XML Schema that contained all these things it
would require 6 independent schemas each with it's own target
namespace. If you have ever tried to debug something like this you will
know what total madness it is. We can't just abandon XML Schema because
it would rule out not only our existing technologies but GML and
probably others... It may also be desirable to express our ontology in
things that aren't even XML.<br>
<br>
The only solution I can think is that for the TDWG Ontology we should
have a single formal namespace of: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/">http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/</a><br>
<br>
Within the ontology we have a convention for concepts that goes like
this.<br>
<br>
A class would be: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_MyClass">http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_MyClass</a><br>
<br>
where 123 is the internal id of the class and MyClass is the class name<br>
<br>
A property in MyClass would be:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_myProperty">http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_myProperty</a><br>
<br>
where 123 is the *class* id not the property id and myProperty is the
property name.<br>
<br>
An instance would be <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_789">http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/tdwg123_789</a><br>
<br>
where 123 is the *class* id and 789 is the instance id (there is
nothing stable about an instance that we could use as an identifier
unless we force a label property and make it immutable).<br>
<br>
In a way this is using the part before the _ as a pseudo namespace.<br>
<br>
I think this hits the balance between something that is technology
independent and something that will produce reasonably human readable
documents.<br>
<br>
It is radical which is why I thought it would be good to talk about it.<br>
<br>
Any one got an alternative?<br>
<br>
We have to have a solution for this by the end of the St Louis meeting
as it is critical path for ontology work.<br>
<br>
Most grateful for you patience and any thoughts you have.<br>
<br>
Roger<br>
<br>
<br>
Sally Hinchcliffe wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid4518ECD5.5080.2948AA@localhost" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Steve /all
We took that syntax straight from Roger's RDF/TCS examples. I think
Roger was going to do more work on tidying up those sorts of loose
ends. I have to admit that my knowledge of RDF and particularly RDFS
is pretty superficial
We can switch to either the shorter format or the safer fully
qualified URI - what do people think would be better?
Sally
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">By the way, the IPNI example you cite has an error:
<tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource="&tn;#botanical" />
Many RDF/XML parsers will see &tn; as an entity which cannot be
resolved. Since I don't have a copy of the ontology (and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames">http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames</a> does not resolve), I can only take
a guess that it should look something like:
<tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource="tn:botanical" />
However, using XML namespace prefixes in resource references inside
RDF/XML documents tends to cause problems because not all RDF/XML
parsers are smart enough to dereference the namespace prefix and build a
fully-qualified resource URI. A safer form of the above would be the
fully qualified resource URI which looks like:
<tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/botanical">"http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/botanical"</a> />
-Steve
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk">S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk</a>
_______________________________________________
TDWG-GUID mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu">TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid">http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org">http://www.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:roger@tdwg.org">roger@tdwg.org</a>
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>