1. Firstly is it possible to express items likeSorry, my english is too weak. Does this mean a character value that is often reported by confusion with another taxon ?
"Feature often present by mis-identification"
I note you've already highlighted seasonal variations as a problem.My solution: the default for a Property is to record the state for:
Otherwise, create a new Property. Note that beside the specified sub-elements of tax:Property (appliesTo, appliesToClasses, name), it is possible to add extra information like, say, <bio:season>spring</bio:season>. This is a property (rdf:Property) about a property (tax:Property).
To that I'd add geographical,My (simple) solution: if anything is different in some region, create a lower level tax:TaxonomicClass, containing just the differing Features; according to model, other Features will be inherited.
2. It seems to presuppose a Linnean viewpoint i.e. Kingdom,I didn't write that, in fact this model is so generic that it could almost be applied to car models!
Phylum, etc.
Gregor has previously pointed out that theAnd belonging to phytosociological associations, also. Although I didn't think of that, this is no problem. You just have to publish on the Web a Schema with, say, a ProteinClass and a ProteinSubClass, declaring that both are rdfs:subClassOf of tax:TaxonomicClass, and connecting them using tax:lowerClasses and tax:upperClass, etc. And hoping that many will connect to your Schema... Well, this is the freedom of the Web, but I hope that a standard will be found. But I wanted to show that extendibility is perfectly possible, with the possibility that the new semantic is declared as such, so that tools can understand the new semantic.
reality is much more complex. Multiple hierarchies
can be produced. For example, how would the model be used to express
DNA/Protein data? Physiological versus Molecular hierarchies?
3. I assume that the list of Feature/Properties will not beYes
fixed, but can be extended at will?
However I'm concerned that the presence of items like 'TaxonomicClass' in the model doesn'tIs this requirement like the Molecular hierarchies, or something else ?
capture the range of flexibility that Kevin, Gregor and the others
have stated as a requirement.
Cheers
Jean-Marc
--
<person>
<first_name>Jean-Marc</first_name>
<name>Vanel</name>
<project>Worlwide Botanical Knowledge Base -
making botany available on Internet
<a href="http://wwbota.free.fr/" >site</a>
</project>
<homePage>http://jmvanel.free.fr/</homePage>
<a href="mailto:jmvanel@free.fr">mail (eventually put "wwbota"
in subject to route your mail in relevant folder)</a>
</person>