I would add WebProtege [1] to Bob's email, and this tool is being developed towards better maturation on an on-going basis. Or more generally, the need for this tool is by no means specific to TDWG but is needed by a variety of large NIH (and NSF) funded projects, and so I think it is safe to say that even if TDWG did nothing to further development of such a tool, it is still going to came into place very soon.
The unique expertise that TDWG can contribute here is not how to build such a tool. Rather, it is the biodiversity domain expertise informing a biodiversity information ontology itself, and how to prioritize its development.
-hilmar
[1] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/WebProtege
On Nov 12, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Lee Belbin wrote:
Well stated Stan, but I'd add a third-
- 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:
- 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