More Strange Monkey Business-like things in GBIF KOS Document. Does this accurately characterize my project? "in the GeoSpecies project104 based on a small purpose-built ontology105 of mosquito-borne human pathogens." Did they bother to read any of the seven other examples on this page? Or here http://www.taxonconcept.org/ or here http://www.delicious.com/kidehen/pivot_collection_app+linked_geo_species or here http://www.slideshare.net/pjdwi/biodiversity-informatics-on-the-semantic-web Also note that this particular link they used in the document 104 does not work http://about.geospecies.org/index.htm While this http://about.geospecies.org/ or this does http://about.geospecies.org/index.html Also the "small" TaxonConcept SPARQL endpoint has ~27 million triples. It might also be useful to explain how reasoning can be used on the larger data sets. Do they have an example of reasoning that works on a data set over 100 million triples? Is there some reason why there is so much "push" towards specialized near proprietary solutions like LSID's and LOD unfriendly vocabularies? Respectfully, - Pete -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/> ------------------------------------------------------------