This is mostly over my head, but I do have a more general question along these lines:
To what extent are we likely to be implementing substantive machine reasoning for Agents within the context of biodiversity informatics? I can see some value in terms of de-duplication of literature citations, and maybe a few other things here and there such as copyright ownership. But I take the absence of an Agent class within DwC as an indication that our community does not have as much a need for semantic reasoning for Agents (compared to, say, taxa and localities, among others).
If I'm missing something here, I'd very much like to be informed.
Aloha, Rich
_____
From: Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:56 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: Paul Murray; Steve Baskauf; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Comments on Cam's RDF practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
If machine reasoning is a goal, I would be wary of FOAF. An OWL2-DL, or other OWL2 tractable reasoning profile, version remains a moving target, to the best of my knowledge. The reasons that http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ is not subject to tractable reasoning are relatively manageable, but I can no longer find the Zimmerman proposal for a FOAF DL version referenced in the thread ending at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Jul/0378.html
Can someone point me at a DL version of FOAF and indication that it is actively under discussion somewhere?
Thanks
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
I was thoroughly delighted to learn recently that FOAF uses terms in almost exactly the same way that I had structured my "Agents" data (right down to the same exat terms, in most cases). I plan to move forward with the FOAF terms that are relevant (thanks to John W. for pointing this out to me at TDWG).
Rich
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Murray Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:18 PM To: Steve Baskauf Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Comments on Cam's RDF practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On 29/10/2010, at 12:41 AM, Steve Baskauf wrote:
I think both dwc:recordedBy for the Occurrence and
dcterms:created for some tokens should be provided. Depending on the situation, they might be different entities (I think John Wieczorek pointed this out in an earlier thread). dwc:recordedBy is specifically supposed to be a person whereas I think dcterms:creator could be a person or an institution.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile leveraging the FOAF vocabulary (Friend of a Friend). It's mainly meant for social networking, but nevertheless it does contain terms such as Person, Organisation, Group and Project. (Project is interesting - collection activities perhaps are FOAF Projects).
The spec is here: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
We can envisage the day where, by following links on taxonomic web pages, you could eventually find an Author's current twitter address, or ask the semantic web "find me all specimens of genus Tandanus collected by teams affiliated with the university of NSW between 2005 and 2007".
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
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content