Does that mean you dont need any additional literal term at all and all
dwc terms should only be used with URI?
Yes, and it might be interesting to try this with those records for which the might be billions or at least tens of millions like occurrences. This would result in the the most efficient and least ambiguous data format.
By that I mean it might be interesting to try this with a test set and see how well it works and what people think.
I was thinking about the LSID addition because there are people that will want to track or include their LSID's.
If it is include in the vocabulary then they can. Those that don't will not have to put those in their records.
Also it seems that one of the biggest problems we have with the DarwinCore is that users have trouble interpreting what to put into the different fields. I think that what I am suggesting makes this easier to understand.
Many times it has been not been clear to me what to put in these different fields so I can imagine the situation is much worse for those who have have not been IT people for 22 years.
- Pete
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
Does that mean you dont need any additional literal term at all and all dwc terms should only be used with URI? Markus
- Pete
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Rutger Vos rutgeraldo@gmail.com wrote: For labels, would it perhaps make sense to use skos:prefLabel and
skos:altLabel?
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Peter DeVries pete.devries@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Steve, You are probably right that it might be best to use rdfs:Label, but I
am
thinking we might be able to get the same result my defining the string variants as subproperties of rdfs:Label. This would make them an rdfs:Label but a special kind of rdfs:Label. This is one of those things that I would test with Sindice and
URIburner to
see if they interpret these correctly. This would require a live vocabulary that Sindice could look at to
determine
that hasScientificName is to be treated as a rdfs:Label.
- Pete
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
Although this specific example deals with taxonomic name identifiers,
it
is related to a previous discussion on this list about how we should
use the
dwc:xxxxxID terms and other terms (such as recordedBy and
identifiedBy) that
could have either a string (literal) or URI form. Although I don't
really
want to see an unnecessary proliferation of Darwin Core terms, I think
that
in the interest of clarity (particularly where RDF is involved) there
either
should be multiple terms that make it clear what form of identifier is expected, or else there should be an understanding that in RDF the
default
for such a term is a URI which would then have an rdfs:Label property
which
was the string form. I think the former would be preferable to the
latter.
I came to this opinion when trying to write RDF describing an
herbarium
specimen. The collector should be the dwc:recordedBy property of the specimen. Optimally, there would be a database in which known
collectors
were assigned URIs so that "Glen N. Montz", "Glen Montz", "G. N.
Montz",
etc. would all be different labels for the same resource. However, realistically, I'm not going to drop what I'm doing to set up such a database (even if I were capable of doing it, which I'm not). So I
ended up
just writing it as dwc:recordedByGlen N. Montz</dwc:recordedBy> even though I knew it wasn't probably the best thing. In a large
Occurrence
database that was compiled from the RDF created by a lot of people,
there
might end up being a mixture of strings and URIs for dwc:recordedBy properties of the specimens. It seems to me like it would be better
to have
properties like dwc:recordedBy for strings and dwc:recordedByURI for a corresponding URI (and I suppose dwc:recordedByLSID if anyone wants to
use
it). Of course, this would require a number of term additions to DwC
and
clarification in the DwC documentation that the generic version was
intended
for strings.
With respect to the example <dwc:hasScientificNameLSID rdf:resource="urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:
taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010"/>
I think you are right that (with the possible exception of
rdfs:seeAlso)
there is an expectation that an rdf:resource attribute will be a
resolvable
URI that produces RDF. So
dwc:hasScientificNameLSIDurn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:
taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010</dwc:hasScientificNameLSID>
is probably better.
Steve
Peter DeVries wrote:
I have been thinking about the following pattern. In part after
looking at
the GBIF vocabulary. I am not sure if it is even a good idea but might be worth some discussion. For those fields that have both a string and "ID" form maybe the
following
pattern might be useful hasScientificName = string form hasScientificNameURI = Resolvable LOD compliant identifier hasScientificNameLSID = LSID identifier which could be resolvable once
you
add the "http:proxy" etc. This allows all three forms to be included if desired, it also
provides a
hint as to how the field should be interpreted or resolved. One group could also provide a mapping service so that each record
does
not need to include all three forms, but would allow systems to find the matching LSID for a given URI or vs. versa. My concern was that it would be difficult to infer how a
scientificNameID
should be interpreted by other systems. Is this an LSD, is it a URI, is it a UUID etc. ? This impacts the structure of the RDF.
- Note that the actual identifiers might not be correct, the example
below
is more about the form of the RDF
- For instance, I don't think it is probably correct to see the COL
LSID
as just a namestring
- Also in this example the GNI name does not exactly match the string
name
dwc:hasScientificNamePuma concolor (Linnaeus 1771)</dwc:hasScientificName> <dwc:hasScientificNameURI rdf:resource="
http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/6c3dc35f-d901-5cc5-b9c8-ad241069b9f8 "/>
<dwc:hasScientificNameLSID rdf:resource="urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:
taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010"/>
Some system may choke on the LSID form assuming that it uses a
standard
resolution mechanism So it might be best to use this form
dwc:hasScientificNameLSIDurn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:
taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010</dwc:hasScientificNameLSID>
- Pete
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address: VU Station B 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) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
--
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Dr. Rutger A. Vos School of Biological Sciences Philip Lyle Building, Level 4 University of Reading Reading RG6 6BX United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 118 378 7535 http://www.nexml.org http://rutgervos.blogspot.com
--
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content