Hi Steve,
I originally replied to this in the tdwg-tag list, rather than the tdwg-content list.
The resolvability of ontological terms is needed by services like Sindice to figure out how to interpret the RDF.
As in this example:
http://sig.ma/search?pid=02c02e379a5b11a344ed7519ff198222
Like Bob, I have also had problems incorporating the TDWG vocabulary into Protege, which is one reason that I had trouble getting it to work. My current thinking is that it might be best to keep the TDWG vocabulary as it is for submitting data to GBIF etc, while designing a more efficient vocabulary that works well on the LOD.
By "efficient", I mean a vocabulary that uses standard resolvable URI's instead of literals for standard terms etc. This solution would also avoid the problem that Markus just mentioned.
I am also wondering if the "individual" definition should be changed to mean one individual organism rather than a potential collection of individuals. Individuals from the same colony could be represented using a separate related vocabulary. Allowing multiple individuals will cause problems for consuming applications. For instance, is the queen a separate individual or not? How do you differentiate between a photo of the queen vs. a photo of one of the workers. There are also potential problems even if the individuals are all workers.
I have been thinking that for some attributes like character states, it might be best to have a family level ontology. In this example, you might have a "formicidae_ontology", that could be used to deal with individuals from the same colony as well as ant specific character states.
xmlns:ant="http://rs.gbif.org/family_ontology/ant.owl#"
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/individual/123412%22%3E <ant:colonyMateOf rdf:resource="http://example.org/individual/123414%22/%3E </rdf:Description>
This could be defined as a subproperty of dc:relation or something similar in the gbif/tdwg vocabulary.
http://sig.ma/search?pid=02c02e379a5b11a344ed7519ff198222- Pete
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu
wrote:
I was doing some GUID testing using a Linked Data client and I noticed that some Darwin Core terms did not seem to resolve to anything. I ran a test using http://demo.openlinksw.com/rdfbrowser2/ http://api.talis.com/stores/iand-dev1/items/dipper.html http://www5.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/marbles/ and http://dataviewer.zitgist.com/ I first I looked up http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator and all four clients reported the properties of the term. Then I tried http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/basisOfRecord and nothing happened with any of them. I ran a Vapour http://validator.linkeddata.org/vapour validation on the basisOfRecord URI and got the following message:
Vapour was unable to complete the request due to the following exception:
ForbiddenAddress: forbidden request from 98.87.45.8 to http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/basisOfRecord (resolves to IP 192.38.28.106), internal IP addresses are forbidden
I have no idea what that means, but all of this seems to mean that Darwin Core is currently "broken" from a Linked Data point of view.
Steve
-- 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
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag