'Effective tools' to do X, Y & Z always seem to be on the agenda, but I'm not sure it is the tools that are the hold up. Unfortunately I think it boils down to funding... I'm sure if we had adequate funding to get people together for the required length of time, working on the right stuff etc, etc, then we would make fantastic progress.
I'm thinking a really good session with a basic UML tool would be a big step forward. I have got hold of a UML tool and intend to have a go at a core tdwg model. I think it would be great then if we could organise a session on working on this model.
Kevin
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message ----- From: "Lee Belbin" leebelbin@gmail.com Date: Sat, Nov 13, 2010 3:42 pm Subject: [tdwg-content] Relation of GNA to TDWG vocabularies To: "tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
Well stated Stan, but I'd add a third-
3. Effective tool/s for viewing (graph, sub-graph, tables, properties etc.), add/delete/modify with adaptable governance control (e.g., assigned management to sub-graph domains), annotate (with full logging of who did what, when and how...). This is in effect a collaboration tool.
Until we have a tool (preferable to tools) that can be intuitive and effective for building, managing and deploying /exporting vocabs or ontologies, we will struggle with this socially and technically tough, but very necessary task. The social issues are the hardest, but an effective collaboration tool would be a big help.
A tool that will be readily embraced by #2 (the domain specialists) seems far more important than the tools I've seen so far that are embraced by #1 (e.g. Protégé).
That we don't have a TDWG ontology is an increasing worry.
Lee
Lee Belbin Geospatial Team Leader Atlas of Living Australia
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Blum, Stan Sent: Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:43 AM To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Relation of GNA to TDWG vocabularies
Progress on the TDWG ontology seems to require:
1) one or more people with good sense of what can be done with ontologies, both in the near-term and long-term; and 2) one or more people who understand the way information is partitioned in this domain and how it could fit together.
I think we have a lot of #2, but not many of #1.
FYI, we have seed money to bring these categories together.
-Stan
On 11/12/10 2:25 PM, "Bob Morris" morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
[...] the current status of the TDWG-Ontology efforts. The Google Code website seems a bit anemic,
Ooh, I love that line. I think I'll put it in the script of my next animation, to be titled: "Alpha and Beta discuss the current status of of the TDWG-Ontology efforts"
Thanks for correcting the URL.
Bob
Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Associate, Harvard University Herbaria email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile) _______________________________________________ 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
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz