Thanks John,

mostly repeating what I said earlier I would prefer to coin the new example term in the existing dwcattributes namespace. 
It feels more consistent, is very straight forward and as you say we can always declare same as relations elsewhere if that is really useful to anyone.
I cannot see any immediate advantage of reusing either the skos or the iao term over minting a new one in the single dwcattributes namespace that helps documenting our dwc terms.

Markus


On 20 Mar 2015, at 14:14, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to summarize my understanding of the state of the proposal to put term content recommendations in comments consistently, rather than in the definitions where they can sometimes be found. There has been universal support for this idea. 

A second part of the proposal was to take this opportunity to separate the examples from the comments using a distinct property to do so in the rdf definitions of the terms. There has also been universal support for this idea.

Discussion revolved around how to accomplish the second part of the proposal. I originally proposed a new attribute "dwcattributes:example", which would be included once for every distinct example of term usage - with potentially many per Darwin Core term. There was universal support for the idea of enabling this capability, though there was mixed opinion about using an existing term instead of minting a new one in the dwcattributes namespace. Specifically, "skos:example" and "iao:example of usage" were discussed. Potential problems with "skos:example" were pointed out. Similar concerns about "iao:example of usage" were addressed, leaving this option still open for consideration.

It is not entirely clear technically (to me, anyway) how the annotation property "iao:example of usage" would be imported into the normative rdf document. I'm unaware of an OWL to RDF import mechanism. That doesn't mean much, because I am not an expert. If there is not, I suppose we would have to define an rdf file ourselves for the iao term and import that into dwcattributes or into the normative Darwin Core rdf file(s) directly. I don't think this would be a rigorous solution, but it would demonstrate our intent fairly well, especially if there were comments to that effect in the rdf files. Some guidance here might help us make a final decision on this topic.

If there is no clear and rigorous solution to the rdf import problem from IAO, then it may just be easier to coin "dwcattributes:example" as originally proposed, at least for now, and worry about it's equivalence to "iao:example of usage" on the ontology side (BCO).

I would really like to get the broader issue resolved soon, as we do already have consensus on making the contents of the definitions and comments consistent. If we can't resolve how to separate the examples (even though we agree that it is a good idea), I will propose that we forget that added part of the proposal and just deal with the consistency issue first.

Comments encouraged, as always.

Cheers,

John

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Ramona Walls <rlwalls2008@gmail.com> wrote:
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

 



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