Re (0) - fair point Roger, but as I said (implied maybe) in my last post, surely the most significant use case is the harmonization of old and new TDWG standards?! Your 'stool' analogy is currently missing at least one leg.
Lee
Lee Belbin Geospatial Team Leader Atlas of Living Australia
Hi Lee,
Harmonizing TDWG standards is a technical intervention but what is it a solution to? We must do this in order to . . . . . .
All the best,
Roger
On 13 Nov 2010, at 23:47, Lee Belbin leebelbin@gmail.com wrote:
Re (0) - fair point Roger, but as I said (implied maybe) in my last post, surely the most significant use case is the harmonization of old and new TDWG standards?! Your 'stool' analogy is currently missing at least one leg.
Lee
Lee Belbin Geospatial Team Leader Atlas of Living Australia
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
One of the goals of my work is to create data structures that allow me to do useful queries.
For example:
1) I would like to be able to query for occurrences of a species, not simply occurrences of a particular name string. 2) I would like to be able to query for a list of possible candidate species based on a particular latitude and longitude. 3) I would like to make related, but not identical entities, "findable" by linking to them using skos:closeMatch or some future non-entailing version of owl:sameAs 4) The data structure should leverage existing, widely used LOD vocabularies, to take advantage of those systems and tools that understand them. 5) To minimize ambiguity and increase triple store efficiency, controlled vocabularies should be represented using URI's rather than literals
It is these kinds of goals and use cases that determine the best way to organize and structure the data.
What I still don't understand is why some think that we can arrive at a standard that can be all things to all people without a set of use cases and example data sets.
I would also like examples of why using things like SKOS will result in an unusable standard.
There are issues with SKOS and FOAF which are being worked out on the public-lod list.
There are also a number of ways to work around some of the potential problems with SKOS and FOAF.
In my experience it seems as if the TDWG standards process is broken.
At various times I have tried to help, but at the end of the day I need something that works.
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Roger Hyam rogerhyam@mac.com wrote:
Hi Lee,
Harmonizing TDWG standards is a technical intervention but what is it a solution to? We must do this in order to . . . . . .
All the best,
Roger
On 13 Nov 2010, at 23:47, Lee Belbin leebelbin@gmail.com wrote:
Re (0) - fair point Roger, but as I said (implied maybe) in my last post,
surely
the most significant use case is the harmonization of old and new TDWG standards?! Your 'stool' analogy is currently missing at least one leg.
Lee
Lee Belbin Geospatial Team Leader Atlas of Living Australia
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
participants (3)
-
Lee Belbin -
Peter DeVries -
Roger Hyam