Hi Joel,
I see schema last as part of an iterative process in which you mark things up as you think they will work and revise the data and ontology until it allows the kinds of queries etc. that you want.
The current Darwin Core maps to spreadsheets and XML but I think that we might want to work on some representation that works well on the LOD.
This form could be created by cleaning and normalizing DarwinCore submissions.
- Pete
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:05 PM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote:
Paul,
Is that Organism#hasIdentification URI from the TDWG ontology? I thought the TDWG ontology was de facto deprecated. Am I wrong about that?
Not only does http://tdwg.org/voc/Organism#hasIdentification not dereference, but it doesn't even generate real hits via Google. (Even http://tdwg.org/voc is broken.)
My thoughts about hasIdentification are in the context of representing Darwin Core as rdf. I think it's important that we continue to allow (and encourage) spreadsheet represntations of DwC, and that these map naturally to de-normalized rdf.
I agree that it makes sense, as you suggest, to define hasIdentification as a property without domain constraints, and then introduce subProperties individualHasIdentification, occurrenceHasIdentification, pictureHasIdentification, etc., each with the appropriate domain. Then, applications that know what they're doing can apply the correct property.
You wrote: "a person who uses that predicate to describe a painting is misusing the vocabulary and deserves what they get."
The problem is that it's not just the person who misuses a vocabulary that gets a mess of incorrect inferences. We all do.
Joel.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Paul Murray wrote:
On 20/02/2011, at 1:24 PM, joel sachs wrote:
I'm currently arguing with someone off-list about what I think is my minimal example, that I hope that everyone can agree on. It's about
domain
constraints on "hasIdentification". If I say
"http://fu.bar hasIdentifcation rabbit",
should we, as a community, interpret that to mean that http://fu.bar is
an
individulOrganism (as opposed to, say, a picture)? Must I, as a guy who likes to make assertions, be told either
been a while since I chimed in on this list.
hasIdentification has an RDF namespace. If the full name of the predicate
is actually
http://tdwg.org/voc/Organism#hasIdentificationThen it's probably quite reasonable to make the type assumption. If you
want to make it more general, then define a more general predicate
http://tdwg.org/voc/Common#hasIdentificationand type (IdentifiableThing), and make subclass/subproperty assertions.
If the namespace/ontoogy that you are importing makes it clear that we are talking about organisms, then a person who uses that predicate to describe a painting is misusing the vocabulary and deserves what they get.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content