As far as I know, iao:example of usage also allows both literals and URLs as the range. However, I fail to see a serious problem with that, and to me, the benefits of re-using existing properties far outway the benefits I could see from having a separate set of properties for literals. Also, I don't know anyone who reasons over annotations properties, although I am sure there are those who do.
In response to Paul Morris's comment, simply using iao:example of usage does not import all of IAO, and therefore does not include any of the "baggage" of using IAO.
Ramona
------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
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