Like others, I like the idea in principle, but I’m not well-versed in the implications of alternate approaches to implementation to weigh in on that. Whatever technical solution is adopted, I would like to hope that it supports the representation of more than a single example; as sometimes it is useful  to show alternate forms of acceptable content.

Aloha,

Rich

From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:22 AM
To: Paul J. Morris
Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500
Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
> But  skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take
> literals or references [1].  To me, that weighs   more than the
> baggage of minting two new terms.

Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings
you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to
do reasoning.  In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms,
but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.

SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with
significant knowledge engineering consequences.

-Paul
--
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
mole@morris.net  AA3SD  PGP public key available

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content