Re: [tdwg-content] practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence?
I can't help but feel we are getting into a much more complicated area of biodiversity ( or any observation oriented field for that matter ) and that there must be other ontologies or models that we could follow or reuse. Our strength at TDWG is obviously the more biodiversity specific details such as taxonomy, invasiveness, etc. I might have an investigation of possible models to reuse - unless someone has already done this and has a suggestion.
Kevin
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message ----- From: "Richard Pyle" deepreef@bishopmuseum.org Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 8:11 pm Subject: [tdwg-content] practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence? To: "'Steve Baskauf'" steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu Cc: "tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
I see dwc:establishmentMeans as being very clearly a property of "Individual At Place" (again, scoping "Individual" up to at least population). The closest thing we have to that in the diagram1 is Occurrence. The only hitch is that Occurrence isn't exactly "Individual At Place", so much as "Individual At Event[=Place+Time]" Some people have suggected that dwc:establishmentMeans is a function of Time as well as Place, in which case it is very clearly (to me) a property of Occurrence.
Rich
________________________________
From: Steve Baskauf [mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:25 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] practical details of recording a determination What is an Occurrence?
Well, I also feel pretty good about most of that diagram, but I'm still struggling with the whole "token" thing. I feel the need to discuss basisOfRecord=LivingSpecimen which is the most complicated case and is also related to the previous discussion about dwc:establishmentMeans as well as my proposal to move it to the proposed Individual class. It is also related to another issue that I haven't broached here but which is discussed in my paper - "Occurrences" that aren't directly derived from an individual. I'm beginning to think that part of what I wrote there (in the paper) was wrong, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. That issue will probably come up if I comment about what Cam wrote in his email. So there may be more to hash out, but I can't handle it today because I've got too many other things to do. I've been mentally composing what I hope is a lucid presentation, but it hasn't hit the keyboard yet.
Steve
I have to say, this has been about the most productive (if volumunous) list-discussion I've had in...well...maybe ever. It seems we've both been equally persuasive, and equally willing to concede. How rare that happens in an internet forum! I'm not sure there's anything left that we disagee about. If the "diagram1" seems to resonate with everyone as the most "normalized" ER diagram we'll likely ever need, and if we can somehow accommodate flexibility in RDF for collapsing attributes to different classes (but only from the "one" side to the "many" side) -- then we might have achived the elusive Holy Grail of biodiversity informatics: true consensus.
Thanks for your great feedback and for challenging my statements. I need
that!
Likewise!
Aloha, Rich
.
-- 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
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Hi Kevin,
I can't help but feel we are getting into a much more complicated area of biodiversity ( or any observation oriented field for that matter ) and that there must be other ontologies or models that we could follow or reuse.
If you are referring specifically to adding depth to the observations of Individuals, I think one might look first at OBOE (OBOE: Extensible Observation Ontology) from the SEEK group at NCEAS:
http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe.owl
In summary, this describes an Observation of an Entity, with the Observation comprising a Measurement of the Value for a Characteristic of the Entity:
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# .
[] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ a oboe:Measurement ; oboe:ofCharacteristic [ a oboe:Characteristic ; ] ; oboe:hasValue [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; ] .
If we assert that a dwc:Occurrence is an instance of oboe:Entity, with dwc:basisOfRecord of "HumanObservation", with a dc:creator and dc:created (i.e., the space-time intersection of an Individual and a human observer), we can marry these two ontologies quite nicely. Please see Example 1, below, for a description of the fruit color of an individual plant.
What's nice about the OBOE model is that it contains all three possible parts of an observation: the entity, the characteristic and the value. This allows direct mapping to the Prometheus Description Model (structure + property + state = entity + characteristic + value; Pullan et al. 2005, Taxon 54:751-765), and indirect mapping to the popular EQ model (entity + quality, where quality = characteristic + value; Mabee et al. 2007, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.013). However, it doesn't map easily to the DELTA or SDD data models (character + character-state, where character = entity + characteristic and character-state = value).
Because of the well-developed OBO ontologies, we can directly employ terms from, say, the Plant Ontology (po), for an oboe:Entity, and terms from PATO, the quality ontology, for a oboe:Measurement, combining characteristic and value into a quality. We need to assert that a pato:quality is equivalent to a oboe:Measurement and possibly that a po:PO_0000001 (top level `plant structure') is an oboe:Entity. We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
So, it seems that using only well-established vocabularies, we can make semantic statements about the characteristics of individuals originally defined primarily using DwC terms. Please see example 2, below for a fairly slim, usable model of a description of the fruit color of an individual plant. The image of the model is at:
http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/img/tdwg-obs.jpg
Again, any comments on this model will be much appreciated. Are you aware of other attempts to join DwC Occurrence models with OBOE models?
Best,
Cam
====================== Example 1 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix : <#> .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 a sernec:Individual ; sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 # The Occurrence of the Individual... a dwc:Occurrence ; # ... at a position in space-time... dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ a dcterms:Location ; geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; # is a recordable OBOE Entity a oboe:Entity ; # as recorded by a human dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ # The observed entity is actually *part of* the occurrence # of the Individual at a particular Space and Time a :Fruit ; :partOf _:blank1 ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ oboe:ofCharacteristic :Color ; oboe:hasValue :Green ; ] .
:Fruit a oboe:Entity . :Color a oboe:Characteristic . :Green a oboe:Entity .
========================================================================
====================== Example 2 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix ro: http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl# . @prefix pato: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PATO# . @prefix po: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PO# . @prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 a dwc:Occurrence ; dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ ro:part_of _:blank1 ; a po:PO_0009001 ; # Fruit ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement pato:PATO_0000320 . # Green color
po:PO_0009001 rdfs:label "fruit" . pato:PATO_0000320 rdfs:label "green" .
========================================================================
I am convenor of a group charged with recommending positions about Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) to GBIF. Among the things that will be in our report will be a survey important vocabularies and ontologies for biodiversity Knowledge Organization. Not only will OBOE be among those discussed, but one of its architects, Mark Schildauer, is a member of the work group. Similarly re: the OBO ontologies. When our report is drafted, it will be opened for public comment both as to what we recommend and what we may have missed. Meanwhile, there is a survey at http://surveymonkey.com/GBIFKOSurvey to which all are invited to participate if you haven't already. If you have favorite KOS resources, there is good opportunity to list them there.
Also, the TDWG 2010 Thursday sessions on Observations will, I believe, soon have their notes on the TDWG website (if not there already).
Bob Morris
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Cam Webb cwebb@oeb.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I can't help but feel we are getting into a much more complicated area of biodiversity ( or any observation oriented field for that matter ) and that there must be other ontologies or models that we could follow or reuse.
If you are referring specifically to adding depth to the observations of Individuals, I think one might look first at OBOE (OBOE: Extensible Observation Ontology) from the SEEK group at NCEAS:
http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe.owl
In summary, this describes an Observation of an Entity, with the Observation comprising a Measurement of the Value for a Characteristic of the Entity:
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# .
[] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ a oboe:Measurement ; oboe:ofCharacteristic [ a oboe:Characteristic ; ] ; oboe:hasValue [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; ] .
If we assert that a dwc:Occurrence is an instance of oboe:Entity, with dwc:basisOfRecord of "HumanObservation", with a dc:creator and dc:created (i.e., the space-time intersection of an Individual and a human observer), we can marry these two ontologies quite nicely. Please see Example 1, below, for a description of the fruit color of an individual plant.
What's nice about the OBOE model is that it contains all three possible parts of an observation: the entity, the characteristic and the value. This allows direct mapping to the Prometheus Description Model (structure
- property + state = entity + characteristic + value; Pullan et al. 2005,
Taxon 54:751-765), and indirect mapping to the popular EQ model (entity + quality, where quality = characteristic + value; Mabee et al. 2007, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.013). However, it doesn't map easily to the DELTA or SDD data models (character + character-state, where character = entity + characteristic and character-state = value).
Because of the well-developed OBO ontologies, we can directly employ terms from, say, the Plant Ontology (po), for an oboe:Entity, and terms from PATO, the quality ontology, for a oboe:Measurement, combining characteristic and value into a quality. We need to assert that a pato:quality is equivalent to a oboe:Measurement and possibly that a po:PO_0000001 (top level `plant structure') is an oboe:Entity. We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
So, it seems that using only well-established vocabularies, we can make semantic statements about the characteristics of individuals originally defined primarily using DwC terms. Please see example 2, below for a fairly slim, usable model of a description of the fruit color of an individual plant. The image of the model is at:
http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/img/tdwg-obs.jpg
Again, any comments on this model will be much appreciated. Are you aware of other attempts to join DwC Occurrence models with OBOE models?
Best,
Cam
====================== Example 1 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix : <#> .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 a sernec:Individual ; sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 # The Occurrence of the Individual... a dwc:Occurrence ; # ... at a position in space-time... dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ a dcterms:Location ; geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; # is a recordable OBOE Entity a oboe:Entity ; # as recorded by a human dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ # The observed entity is actually *part of* the occurrence # of the Individual at a particular Space and Time a :Fruit ; :partOf _:blank1 ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ oboe:ofCharacteristic :Color ; oboe:hasValue :Green ; ] .
:Fruit a oboe:Entity . :Color a oboe:Characteristic . :Green a oboe:Entity .
========================================================================
====================== Example 2 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix ro: http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl# . @prefix pato: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PATO# . @prefix po: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PO# . @prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 a dwc:Occurrence ; dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ ro:part_of _:blank1 ; a po:PO_0009001 ; # Fruit ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement pato:PATO_0000320 . # Green color
po:PO_0009001 rdfs:label "fruit" . pato:PATO_0000320 rdfs:label "green" .
======================================================================== _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
For example, here is a sparql query that will show the occurrences that are tagged to the concept for the American Toad.
PREFIX txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# PREFIX american_toad: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/kQmp4#Species
DESCRIBE ?x WHERE { ?x txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesConcept american_toad:. }
This bit.ly link will take you to my endpoint which will display these on a map. (Need to change the Visualization to GoogleMaps)
These should also work on anyone else's endpoint, and on the LOD endpoint when the set is crawled.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
I am convenor of a group charged with recommending positions about Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) to GBIF. Among the things that will be in our report will be a survey important vocabularies and ontologies for biodiversity Knowledge Organization. Not only will OBOE be among those discussed, but one of its architects, Mark Schildauer, is a member of the work group. Similarly re: the OBO ontologies. When our report is drafted, it will be opened for public comment both as to what we recommend and what we may have missed. Meanwhile, there is a survey at http://surveymonkey.com/GBIFKOSurvey to which all are invited to participate if you haven't already. If you have favorite KOS resources, there is good opportunity to list them there.
Also, the TDWG 2010 Thursday sessions on Observations will, I believe, soon have their notes on the TDWG website (if not there already).
Bob Morris
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Cam Webb cwebb@oeb.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I can't help but feel we are getting into a much more complicated area of biodiversity ( or any observation oriented field for that matter ) and that there must be other ontologies or models that we could follow or reuse.
If you are referring specifically to adding depth to the observations of Individuals, I think one might look first at OBOE (OBOE: Extensible Observation Ontology) from the SEEK group at NCEAS:
http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe.owl
In summary, this describes an Observation of an Entity, with the Observation comprising a Measurement of the Value for a Characteristic of the Entity:
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# .
[] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ a oboe:Measurement ; oboe:ofCharacteristic [ a oboe:Characteristic ; ] ; oboe:hasValue [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; ] .
If we assert that a dwc:Occurrence is an instance of oboe:Entity, with dwc:basisOfRecord of "HumanObservation", with a dc:creator and dc:created (i.e., the space-time intersection of an Individual and a human
observer),
we can marry these two ontologies quite nicely. Please see Example 1, below, for a description of the fruit color of an individual plant.
What's nice about the OBOE model is that it contains all three possible parts of an observation: the entity, the characteristic and the value. This allows direct mapping to the Prometheus Description Model (structure
- property + state = entity + characteristic + value; Pullan et al. 2005,
Taxon 54:751-765), and indirect mapping to the popular EQ model (entity + quality, where quality = characteristic + value; Mabee et al. 2007, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.013). However, it doesn't map easily to the DELTA or SDD data models (character + character-state, where character = entity + characteristic and character-state = value).
Because of the well-developed OBO ontologies, we can directly employ
terms
from, say, the Plant Ontology (po), for an oboe:Entity, and terms from PATO, the quality ontology, for a oboe:Measurement, combining characteristic and value into a quality. We need to assert that a pato:quality is equivalent to a oboe:Measurement and possibly that a po:PO_0000001 (top level `plant structure') is an oboe:Entity. We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
So, it seems that using only well-established vocabularies, we can make semantic statements about the characteristics of individuals originally defined primarily using DwC terms. Please see example 2, below for a fairly slim, usable model of a description of the fruit color of an individual plant. The image of the model is at:
http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/img/tdwg-obs.jpg
Again, any comments on this model will be much appreciated. Are you
aware
of other attempts to join DwC Occurrence models with OBOE models?
Best,
Cam
====================== Example 1 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix : <#> .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 a sernec:Individual ; sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 # The Occurrence of the Individual... a dwc:Occurrence ; # ... at a position in space-time... dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ a dcterms:Location ; geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; # is a recordable OBOE Entity a oboe:Entity ; # as recorded by a human dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ # The observed entity is actually *part of* the occurrence # of the Individual at a particular Space and Time a :Fruit ; :partOf _:blank1 ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ oboe:ofCharacteristic :Color ; oboe:hasValue :Green ; ] .
:Fruit a oboe:Entity . :Color a oboe:Characteristic . :Green a oboe:Entity .
========================================================================
====================== Example 2 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix ro: http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl# . @prefix pato: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PATO# . @prefix po: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PO# . @prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 a dwc:Occurrence ; dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ ro:part_of _:blank1 ; a po:PO_0009001 ; # Fruit ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement pato:PATO_0000320 . # Green color
po:PO_0009001 rdfs:label "fruit" . pato:PATO_0000320 rdfs:label "green" .
======================================================================== _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- 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
People should be marking up these vocabularies with real data and demonstrating how they can be used to make useful queries in a viewable sparql endpoint or the LOD cloud endpoint.
Also demonstrating how the interoperate with related datasets.
- Pete
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Cam Webb cwebb@oeb.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I can't help but feel we are getting into a much more complicated area of biodiversity ( or any observation oriented field for that matter ) and that there must be other ontologies or models that we could follow or reuse.
If you are referring specifically to adding depth to the observations of Individuals, I think one might look first at OBOE (OBOE: Extensible Observation Ontology) from the SEEK group at NCEAS:
http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe.owl
In summary, this describes an Observation of an Entity, with the Observation comprising a Measurement of the Value for a Characteristic of the Entity:
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# .
[] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ a oboe:Measurement ; oboe:ofCharacteristic [ a oboe:Characteristic ; ] ; oboe:hasValue [ a oboe:Entity ; ] ; ] .
If we assert that a dwc:Occurrence is an instance of oboe:Entity, with dwc:basisOfRecord of "HumanObservation", with a dc:creator and dc:created (i.e., the space-time intersection of an Individual and a human observer), we can marry these two ontologies quite nicely. Please see Example 1, below, for a description of the fruit color of an individual plant.
What's nice about the OBOE model is that it contains all three possible parts of an observation: the entity, the characteristic and the value. This allows direct mapping to the Prometheus Description Model (structure
- property + state = entity + characteristic + value; Pullan et al. 2005,
Taxon 54:751-765), and indirect mapping to the popular EQ model (entity + quality, where quality = characteristic + value; Mabee et al. 2007, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.013). However, it doesn't map easily to the DELTA or SDD data models (character + character-state, where character = entity + characteristic and character-state = value).
Because of the well-developed OBO ontologies, we can directly employ terms from, say, the Plant Ontology (po), for an oboe:Entity, and terms from PATO, the quality ontology, for a oboe:Measurement, combining characteristic and value into a quality. We need to assert that a pato:quality is equivalent to a oboe:Measurement and possibly that a po:PO_0000001 (top level `plant structure') is an oboe:Entity. We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
So, it seems that using only well-established vocabularies, we can make semantic statements about the characteristics of individuals originally defined primarily using DwC terms. Please see example 2, below for a fairly slim, usable model of a description of the fruit color of an individual plant. The image of the model is at:
http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/img/tdwg-obs.jpg
Again, any comments on this model will be much appreciated. Are you aware of other attempts to join DwC Occurrence models with OBOE models?
Best,
Cam
====================== Example 1 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix : <#> .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 a sernec:Individual ; sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 # The Occurrence of the Individual... a dwc:Occurrence ; # ... at a position in space-time... dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ a dcterms:Location ; geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; # is a recordable OBOE Entity a oboe:Entity ; # as recorded by a human dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ # The observed entity is actually *part of* the occurrence # of the Individual at a particular Space and Time a :Fruit ; :partOf _:blank1 ; ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement [ oboe:ofCharacteristic :Color ; oboe:hasValue :Green ; ] .
:Fruit a oboe:Entity . :Color a oboe:Characteristic . :Green a oboe:Entity .
========================================================================
====================== Example 2 =======================================
@prefix oboe: http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe-core.owl# . @prefix dwc: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ . @prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ . @prefix sernec: http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms# . @prefix geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos# . @prefix ro: http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl# . @prefix pato: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PATO# . @prefix po: http://purl.org/obo/owl/PO# . @prefix rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# .
http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9 sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
_:blank1 a dwc:Occurrence ; dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ; dcterms:spatial [ geo:lon "109.95371" ; geo:lat "-1.25530" ; dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters "100" ; ] ; dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ; dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
# The details of the observation: [] a oboe:Observation ; oboe:ofEntity [ ro:part_of _:blank1 ; a po:PO_0009001 ; # Fruit ] ; oboe:hasMeasurement pato:PATO_0000320 . # Green color
po:PO_0009001 rdfs:label "fruit" . pato:PATO_0000320 rdfs:label "green" .
======================================================================== _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Cam Webb wrote:
We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
I don't think you can do that actually, given the definition of the relation [1]. I.e., to me the definition sounds like it is true meristic parthood that is meant here (and for which it is applied in the uses that I have seen). The fruit has some role in Occurrence, but isn't a part of it in the sense of meristics, don't you think?
Also, the quantification doesn't match: If A ro:part_of B, then all instances of A part_of some instance of B. Obviously, there are some fruits that haven't been recorded in an occurrence. Unless you equate Occurrence to the fact that a particular instance exists, whether someone has recorded it in an observation or not. That would be a trivial assertion though and I don't think is the purpose of dwc:Occurrence, is it?
-hilmar
[1] http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/#OBO_REL:part_of
Dear Hilmar,
Thanks for this insight. I have to admit to no prior experience of mereology, but the desire to find a solution to how to semantically encode morphological observations in a fashion which many can agree upon prods me to reply. Sorry if I am way in out of my depth and it shows!
We can also employ the OBO relational ontology (ro) to indicate that a fruit is ro:part_of the particular space-time Occurrence of an Individual (this might require a bit more discussion!).
I don't think you can do that actually, given the definition of the relation [1]. I.e., to me the definition sounds like it is true meristic parthood that is meant here (and for which it is applied in the uses that I have seen). The fruit has some role in Occurrence, but isn't a part of it in the sense of meristics, don't you think?
If we consider the occurrence to be the intersection of the individual with an (observation) event in a particular space and time (e.g., tzxy0), I think a fruit_txyz0 is indeed part of plant_txyz0, fulfilling the ro:part_of definition of:
``For continuants: C part_of C' if and only if: given any c that instantiates C at a time t, there is some c' such that c' instantiates C' at time t, and c *part_of* c' at t.''
The alternative to making the fruit a part of the dwc:Occurrence is to make it a part_of the sernec:Individual, which could then be observed via the OBOE terms, at a particular place and time (although strangely there seems to be no date/time observation terms in OBOE). This second alternative would be less satisfying though, given that dwc:Occurrences have already been specified to include Observations. Maybe using dcterms:isPartOf would be OK, since it is less precisely defined?
Also, the quantification doesn't match: If A ro:part_of B, then all instances of A part_of some instance of B. Obviously, there are some fruits that haven't been recorded in an occurrence.
I agree with this, but this must surely be a generic issue within the whole OBO/organismal annotation world - often a phenotype must be recorded for c, which is part_of c', without having considered every instance of C.
This is clearly an issue to take up with the TDWG Observations WG, and I'll post to the new post-Wood's Hole list shortly. If any of you have any suggestions for how to progress with this, I'd appreciate them.
Best,
Cam
On Oct 25, 2010, at 4:45 AM, Cam Webb wrote:
Also, the quantification doesn't match: If A ro:part_of B, then all instances of A part_of some instance of B. Obviously, there are some fruits that haven't been recorded in an occurrence.
I agree with this, but this must surely be a generic issue within the whole OBO/organismal annotation world - often a phenotype must be recorded for c, which is part_of c', without having considered every instance of C.
In the EQ model, the phenotype is recorded as some quality Q that inheres in some entity E. E may be a composition (OWL intersection), for example E that is part_of some E' (e.g., the process that is part_of the urohyal bone): some quality Q that inheres in some (E and part_of some E'). There is no need to consider every E: the statement asserts that there is some instance of E that is also part_of some instance of E' and in which some instance of Q inheres.
-hilmar
Hi Hilmar,
I agree with this, but this must surely be a generic issue within the whole OBO/organismal annotation world - often a phenotype must be recorded for c, which is part_of c', without having considered every instance of C.
In the EQ model, the phenotype is recorded as some quality Q that inheres in some entity E. E may be a composition (OWL intersection), for example E that is part_of some E' (e.g., the process that is part_of the urohyal bone): some quality Q that inheres in some (E and part_of some E'). There is no need to consider every E: the statement asserts that there is some instance of E that is also part_of some instance of E' and in which some instance of Q inheres.
Could you suggest how to specify in RDF, using EQ terms, how I'd say ``the subset that represents a majority of instances of all fruits that are part_of Individual X'' I'm having trouble with this one! Thanks.
Cam
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Cam Webb wrote:
Could you suggest how to specify in RDF, using EQ terms, how I'd say ``the subset that represents a majority of instances of all fruits that are part_of Individual X'' I'm having trouble with this one! Thanks.
Cam - I don't know whether the responses on the obo-phenotype list have helped cast some light on this, and I don't want to repeat everything here. Let us/me know what holes we can try to fill in, or continue this over at obo-phenotype?
-hilmar
participants (5)
-
Bob Morris
-
Cam Webb
-
Hilmar Lapp
-
Kevin Richards
-
Peter DeVries