On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Peter DeVries <
pete.devries@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>>
>> In general I feel lots of the latest threads (though I have to admit I
>> hadnt had the time to read them all) seem to rather discuss the (re)creation
>> of a new tdwg ontology instead of suggesting changes to darwin core. Darwin
>> Core is ratified and I think we should refrain from taking every single term
>> it has to pieces, redefine its definition and reconstruct it in different
>> ways because of linked data demands.
>
>
>>
>> We might be better off to start something new for the LOD world.
>
> I agree. For three main reasons,
> 1) The current DarwinCore works for what it was originally intended.
> 2) Creating something that works well for the semantic web is somewhat
> tricky and will take some time.
> 3) I think this discussion is confusing potential DarwinCore users.
> My main goal was to figure out a "home" for this ontology, and it seems as
> if TDWG only wants to use things in it's namespace.
> It is my feeling that other groups like EUNIS will want to use this so I
> would like to figure out the final ontology uri soon.
> I could add this to the txn ontology, but I think it has utility even
> outside biodiversity informatics.
> - Pete
>
>>
>> > Here is an example with some of the non-relevant stuff taken out.
>> >
>> > <dwc_area:Area rdf:about="geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10">
>> > <dcterms:title>44.86528100, -87.23147800 Radius 10
>> > meters</dcterms:title>
>> >
>> > <dcterms:identifier>geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10</dcterms:identifier>
>> > <dcterms:created>2010-10-28T00:00:00-0500</dcterms:created>
>> > <dcterms:modified>2010-11-19T22:17:37-0600</dcterms:modified>
>> > <geo:lat>44.86528100</geo:lat>
>> > <geo:long>-87.23147800</geo:long>
>> > <dwc_area:radius>10</dwc_area:radius>
>> > <dwc_area:areaWithInFeature
>> > rdf:resource="
http://sws.geonames.org/5250768/"/>
>> > <wdrs:describedBy
>> > rdf:resource="
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf"/>
>> > </dwc_area:Area>
>> >
>> > What I have done with my examples is standardized on a fixed precision
>> > to the lat and log.
>> >
>> > The level of precision does not have be this high, we just need to have
>> > an agreed on level of precision.
>> > (Probably something that we should do anyway since the actual precision
>> > should not be inferred by the significant digits.)
>> >
>> > So Steve's 44.86,-87.23 => 44.86000000, -87.23000000.
>> >
>> > Now we have a standard urn-like entity for an area that follows the
>> > proposed ietf standard.
>> >
>> > Other data like soil type, weather etc can be tied to these areas.
>> >
>> > Area1 => hasDegreeDayValue "2105"
>> >
>> > Other areas can be related to this area Area1 within Area2, AreaB near
>> > AreaC etc.
>> >
>> > AreaZ within NaturePreserveB
>> >
>> > Also the following was recently proposed by the
ietf.org
>> >
>> > A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations ('geo' URI)
>> >
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5870 (from Sean Gillies)
>> > * Not clear that all the systems understand this but URIburner and
>> > Virtuoso interprets these as a URN type thing so they work but are not
>> > understood in the way that the "geo" vocabulary is understood. Note that if
>> > and when this becomes a standard it will allow these "Areas" to be
>> > universally understood.
>> >
>> > What this means is that I can markup my 10,0000 mosquito records from
>> > one location with one URN type id.
>> >
>> > In summary, these allow more efficient occurrence records that leverage
>> > the existing support for the geo vocabulary and the probably support for the
>> >
ietf.org standard.
>> >
>> > I have added some predicate to the vocabulary that allow inferencing
>> > from the area through the geonames hierarchy.
>> >
>> > This would allow one to infer the following about the record above.
>> >
>> > Area > areaWithInFeature => Door County => Wisconsin => United States =>
>> > North America = Earth
>> >
>> > This does not mean that additions could also be made that allow
>> > inferencing up some other non-geonames hierarchy.
>> >
>> > Here is the ontology
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area.owl
>> > Here is the owl doc
>> >
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area_doc/index.html
>> >
>> > Here is an example of an occurrence record that uses this:
>> >
>> > HTML
>> >
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.html
>> > RDF
>> >
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf
>> >
>> > Respectfully,
>> >
>> > - Pete
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Steve Baskauf
>> > <
steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>> > Pete,
>> > I was going to ask questions about this the first time you mentioned it,
>> > but got distracted. I guess the main question I have is: what you would
>> > "do" with it? I guess it could be considered an identifier for a spot on
>> > the earth, but based on what I've read about guids it's considered to be a
>> > "no-no" to try to infer stuff about a resource by looking at the form of the
>> > identifier. Rather one should look at the metadata associated with the
>> > identifier to understand things about the identifier (which you provide with
>> > geo:lat and geo:long). I suppose that one could consider this to be some
>> > kind of identifier that could be reused, but particularly since the
>> > precision of your lat and long are 8 digits, it is highly unlikely that
>> > anybody besides you is ever going to choose to use this identifier over (vs.
>> > 44.86,-87.23 which would be imprecise enough to include a lot of places to
>> > which people might want to refer). I may just be misunderstanding the
>> > purpose you intend.
>> >
>> > The other question is a more general one. Do we need more ways to
>> > specify uncertainty in location than we already have? We already have
>> > dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters and dwc:coordinatePrecision . I've been
>> > using dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters with a seat-of-the pants estimate on
>> > my part about how accurate I think my geolocation is (expressed in meters).
>> > That may be a misuse of this term because I'm really thinking radius around
>> > a point rather than uncertainty of coordinates. But as a practical matter,
>> > if I think my estimate of location is good to 1000 m (vs. 100 m or 10000 m)
>> > does it really matter if I'm talking about a square or a circle? In any
>> > case, I'm saying, this lat/long could be off from the actual location by a
>> > km. If I had a GPS receiver that allowed me to download the actual
>> > estimated accuracy (based on satellite signals and whatever else), then I
>> > would populate dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters with that, but mine crummy
>> > old one doesn't. To me the most important thing is for users to know
>> > whether this is a ballpark estimate or if they could expect to actually be
>> > able to walk up to the tree using the coordinates they give.
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter DeVries wrote:
>> >> I wrote about this earlier but I never heard anything back.
>> >>
>> >> I have made something that uses the geo vocabulary but also allows
>> >> pointRadiusSpatial fit measure that I call radius.
>> >>
>> >> The advantage is that this adds a standard way to deal use something
>> >> like an extent or pointRadiusSpatial while still benefiting from the widely
>> >> used geo vocabulary.
>> >>
>> >> It also allows these "Areas" to be referenced in a commonly understood
>> >> urn way that using a ietf standard.
>> >>
>> >> For example: "geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10"
>> >>
>> >> There are still some things I need to fix and check with this
>> >> vocabulary but I am wondering if there is any interest in incorporating this
>> >> into the DarwinCore.
>> >>
>> >> If not I will probably change the name of the ontology.
>> >>
>> >> There are also things in the example below that are not part of my
>> >> proposal.
>> >>
>> >> I have what I call "Areas" that look like this:
>> >>
>> >> <dwc_area:Area rdf:about="geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10">
>> >> <dcterms:title>44.86528100, -87.23147800 Radius 10
>> >> meters</dcterms:title>
>> >> <dcterms:isPartOf
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/void#this"/>
>> >>
>> >> <dcterms:identifier>geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10</dcterms:identifier>
>> >> <dcterms:created>2010-10-28T00:00:00-0500</dcterms:created>
>> >> <dcterms:modified>2010-11-09T16:33:34-0600</dcterms:modified>
>> >> <geo:lat>44.86528100</geo:lat>
>> >> <geo:long>-87.23147800</geo:long>
>> >> <dwc_area:radius>10</dwc_area:radius>
>> >> <txn:elevation>186.54</txn:elevation>
>> >> <txn:continent>North America</txn:continent>
>> >> <txn:countryCode>US</txn:countryCode>
>> >> <txn:country>United States</txn:country>
>> >> <txn:stateProvince>Wisconsin</txn:stateProvince>
>> >> <txn:county>Door</txn:county>
>> >> <txn:localityText>Town of Sevastopol</txn:localityText>
>> >> <txn:locationName>Shivering Sands Natural Area
>> >> Woods</txn:locationName>
>> >> <txn:areaHasOccurrence
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Occurrence"/>
>> >> <txn:areaHasObservedSpeciesConcept
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species"/>
>> >> <txn:areaHasIndividual
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Individual"/>
>> >> <txn:areaInStateProvince
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://sws.geonames.org/5279468/"/>
>> >> <txn:areaInCounty rdf:resource="
http://sws.geonames.org/5250768/"/>
>> >> <wdrs:describedBy
>> >> rdf:resource="
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf"/>
>> >> </dwc_area:Area>
>> >>
>> >> I recently added the following predicates, but have not altered my RDF
>> >> examples.
>> >>
>> >> #featureContainsArea
>> >> #areaWithInFeature
>> >>
>> >>
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area.owl
>> >>
>> >> OWL Doc
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area_doc/index.html
>> >>
>> >> The predicates are a bit awkward, but I wanted to be clear that this
>> >> was to link an "Area" like "geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10" to a Geonames
>> >> "Feature".
>> >>
>> >> I thought a different set of predicates could be created to deal with
>> >> some other class of "SpatialThing" if needed.
>> >>
>> >> Respectfully,
>> >>
>> >> - Pete
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Pete DeVries
>> >> Department of Entomology
>> >> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> >> 445 Russell Laboratories
>> >> 1630 Linden Drive
>> >> Madison, WI 53706
>> >> TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> >> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>> > Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>> >
>> > postal mail address:
>> > VU Station B 351634
>> > Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
>> >
>> > delivery address:
>> > 2125 Stevenson Center
>> > 1161 21st Ave., S.
>> > Nashville, TN 37235
>> >
>> > office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>> > phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707
>> >
>> >
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Pete DeVries
>> > Department of Entomology
>> > University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> > 445 Russell Laboratories
>> > 1630 Linden Drive
>> > Madison, WI 53706
>> > TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> > About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > <area_sparql_query.jpg>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> TaxonConcept Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>