The problem is that in TDWG we have some people writing and using OWL ontologies and we have other people using Excel spreadsheets. I am fully in support of developing community ontologies. The challenge is to find a way to help the Excel spreadsheet people start where they are and move towards something more semantically sophisticated. That's what I'm trying to suggest here. Hilmar Lapp wrote:
On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Steve Baskauf wrote:
Or use ENVO uris.
Yes, indeed. If they don't exist yet, ask that they do. That's the way to build community ontologies - by a community actively working to make the ontology what it needs it to be. Well, the problem here is that there is only one ENVO ontology.
I would consider that a fortunate fact, not a problem.
There are many systems for defining what a biome is (see wikipedia for examples).
And so there are for what a gene function is, what a disease phenotype is, what an animal anatomy element is, and so on. Yet, for all of these rather domain cross-cutting subject areas, it has been possible for different communities to converge on advancing together one or a few common ontologies. This can require a lot of work, but the eventual pay-off has been huge and is growing. I really don't see why we can't strive for the same for environmental terms and concepts.
-hilmar
-- =========================================================== : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org <http://informatics.nescent.org> : ===========================================================
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: PMB 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942 If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it. http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu