Hi,
I am one of those who like SKOS quite well, and I wrote an early draft of expressing Darwin Core taxonomies based on SKOS. You can see it here: http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Linked_Environment_Data I had some discussion with Roger Hyam about it in August, and he seemed to like it quite well.
It realy is a very early draft, and you should be familiar with SKOS for a full understanding. May be the samples are quite expressive by themselves, anyway.
Thomas
Am 15.11.2010 23:18, schrieb Peter DeVries:
- I originally replied to Bob's post in tdwg-tag, not tdwg-content
It is interesting that Jonathan Reese sees the semantic web and the LOD cloud in a different way that Tim Berners-Lee.
The issue with LOD semantics is being worked out on the public-lod list.
With the exception of some of the LOD services that do inferencing on cloud data, all inferencing is currently done on one machine with all the relevant data loaded.
If you don't like SKOS or some other problematic ontology entailment you can simply:
- Use a modified version of SKOS for your own inferencing.
Also it would be interesting to see some real world inferencing using a data set markup in the current DarwinCore that demonstrates:
- That it works
- That it works in a useful way
So in addition to failing to work within the standards of the larger informatics community TDWG*, is failing to demonstrate that it has a working, useful standard.
Pointing out potential problems with SKOS etc. does not demonstrate that you have anything better.
If the opinions of the real experts in the semantic web community matter then you might want to consider what they think of my work.
Respectfully,
- Pete
- It is welcome news to me that TDWG is now going to follow the advice
of the semantic web community
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
I sent this to tdwg-tag instead of this more appropriate list. My apologies to those who see it twice, along with any replies to it. Jonathan Reese, an employee of the Science Commons and TDWG member (and who knows way more about semantic web than I do) recently sent me this. I copy it here with his permission. Each of the paragraphs seems to me to be germane in different ways to the discussions about what should be an Individual. For those not deep into RDF, for the word "axiom", you could loosely understand "rule", although that term also has technical meaning that is sometimes a little different. Jonathan raises an important use case in the second paragraph, which is data quality control. That's a topic of interest to many, but especially those following the new Annotation Interest Group. Originally, this was part of a discussion we had about my favorite hobby horse, rdfs:domain. He is not on my side. When people who know more than I do about something are skeptical of my arguments about it, I usually suspend disbelief and temporarily adopt their position. Jonathan's first point is pretty much what Paul Murray observed yesterday in response to a question of Kevin Richards. "(a) subclassing is the way in RDFS or OWL you would connect the more specific to the less specific, so that you can apply general theorems to a more specific entity. That is, a well-documented data set would be rendered using classes and properties that were very specific so as to not lose information, and then could be merged with a badly-documented data set by relaxing to more general classes and properties using subclass and subproperty knowledge. (b) axioms (i.e. specificity) are valuable not only for expressing operational and inferential semantics, but also for "sanity checking" e.g. consistency, satisfiability, Clark/Parsia integrity checks ( http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/ ), and similar. Being able to detect ill-formed inputs is incredibly valuable. People talk past one another because there are many distinct use cases for RDF and assumptions are rarely surfaced. For L(O)D, you're interested in making lots of links with little effort. Semantics is the enemy because it drives up costs. For semantic web, on the other hand, you're interested in semantics, i.e. understanding and documenting the import of what's asserted and making a best effort to only assert things that are true, even in the presence of open world assumption and data set extensibility. Semantics is expensive because it requires real thought and often a lot of reverse engineering. People coming from these two places will never be able to get along." ---Jonathan Rees in email to Bob Morris ================ Bob Morris -- -- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Associate, Harvard University Herbaria email: morris.bob@gmail.com <mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com> web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram <http://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eram> phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile) _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content--
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base http://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://about.geospecies.org/
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content