Éamonn,
I have prepared a simple SpeciesPage example based on the current ontology. http://ww3.bgbm.org/tmp/abiesalba.rdf
I hope this helps and also that it's really correct. At least it validates with w3c's validator. You can also view it with the new AJAX based OpenLink RDF browser: http://demo.openlinksw.com/DAV/JS/rdfbrowser/index.html
two things struck me when writing this example: - where do I put a PublicationCitation? I would want to cite all sources for every information and I dont know where/how. Is this missing or part of the base/core ontology already? - hasInformation is a bit redundant, but the validator did complain when I declared all InfoItems under a single hasInformation node. Was this intended? I guess yes, cause otherwise the InfoItems would have to be properties.
best wishes -- Markus
On 28.06.2007, at 13:11, Eamonn O Tuama wrote:
Dear Gregor,
I do not see it being a case of SDD versus SPM. SPM will only be needed if SDD cannot fulfill the use cases of the latter. It would be great if you would accept Roger's invitation to act as champion of an interest group that covers descriptive data, whether covered by SDD, SPM, whatever. Bob would be a good person to talk to because of his knowledge of SDD and his attendance at the GBIF SPM workshop where we initiated discussions.
Question to Marcus: did you manage to develop the SPM instance examples we talked about? I think they will help the interest group, particularly non-modellers, to understand what's involved.
Best regards,
Éamonn
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Hyam [mailto:rogerhyam@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam Sent: 28 May 2007 12:36 To: G. Hagedorn Cc: Eamonn O Tuama; Markus Döring; Lee Belbin Subject: Re: taxon data model
Hi Gregor,
I had hoped that Bob would have talked to you about this. We spoke to him very deliberately in Copenhagen before he came to see you about the overlap with SDD and he said he would discuss it with you.
There was a consensus at the meeting I believe that there should be an interest group that covers descriptive data that contained task groups to do things on SDD, SDD-Lite? TDM (now called SPM I believe) perhaps images or whatever. That way there would be a forum to deal with any of these potential overlaps. I was hoping that he would persuade you to step forward as a champion for such a group!
Please discuss with Eammon who is championing the SPM and Markus who is looking at re-modeling what we came up with. I have cc'd them in on the email.
All the best,
Roger
On 22 May 2007, at 17:48, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Hi Roger
I am just responding because of Adrian's call for the TDWG program.
I understand that the Taxon data model redevelops a lot of the concepts of SDD in a different light.
I do not say what you do is wrong if you are only interested in free-form text. SDD is about structured data and about mixed situations. But I wonder whether you really never want to move into more structured forms.
I am worried or just don't see how your future extensibility would work. How can I learn that?
We did have reasons to consider text characters a form of character, but the reasons we did it is to have typed characters and free-form text mixtures supported. In the markup part, you can also markup with any number of high- level concepts.
I would really like to have discussions on this, on what you learned, and that would include possibly changing SDD into something new. I hope both sides could learn.
What can you suggest? Should we have a session on SDD versus TDM at TDWG?
Would you be willing to talk on the descriptive data part? Do you suggest other talks?
I appreciate your help if you can!
Gregor---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203