February 2006 - tdwg-tag - lists.tdwg.org

Re: RDF application building and databinding tools
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

Bob, It looks like I can only send one link per email. Here's another tool: Sparta, a data binding API for Python. Here is the link: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2004/05/15/sparta Cheers, Ricardo Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote: > Bob Morris wrote: > >> OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are >> developing discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology >> development tools, and I need to educate myself about where are the >> tools and frameworks for building applications and for databinding. > > > Bob, > > I've sent this a couple of months ago to the list, but it might > still be useful: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials > > Click on "Tools" link and it will take to the bottom of the page > (direct link: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials#tools). There's a > list of RDF tools in there (Jena, Kowari, SOFA, PHP RDF and others). I > didn't read that material myself, so I'm not sure whether you will > find what you want. Let us know if you find anything useful. > Best regards, > > Ricardo > >

1 0

RDF application building and databinding tools
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

Bob Morris wrote: > OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are > developing discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology > development tools, and I need to educate myself about where are the > tools and frameworks for building applications and for databinding. Bob, I've sent this a couple of months ago to the list, but it might still be useful: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials Click on "Tools" link and it will take to the bottom of the page (direct link: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials#tools). There's a list of RDF tools in there (Jena, Kowari, SOFA, PHP RDF and others). I didn't read that material myself, so I'm not sure whether you will find what you want. Let us know if you find anything useful. Best regards, Ricardo

1 0

Re: RDF application building and databinding tools
by Steven Perry 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

There are a number of RDF tools and frameworks that we use in DiGIR2 and other projects here at the University of Kansas Biodiversity Research Center. I will include a brief description of each as well as a link to more information. Jena: A Java framework for working with RDF that includes serialization/deserialization of N3, N-Triple, RDF/XML, RDF/XML-ABBREV, and others, both memory and DB-backed triple stores, a reasoner API, support for reification, typed literals, and support for a variety of query languages including RDQL and SPARQL. Jena is an open source project that is used as a component of many other semantic web projects. It is developed by HP Labs. http://jena.sourceforge.net Redland: A C based RDF framework with bindings for many different languages including Perl, Java, C#, Ruby, and others. It also includes serialization/deserialization from a variety of formats, memory and DB-backed triple stores, support for SPARQL and Rasqal query languages, etc. Redland is an open source project that is used as a component of many other semantic web projects. It is developed by Dave Beckett at the University of Bristol. http://librdf.org Jastor: A Java code generator that emits Java Beans from OWL ontologies. Think of it as Castor for OWL. It is designed to work with Jena and is developed by Ben Szekely (who also worked on the LSID framework) and Joe Betz at IBM. http://jastor.sourceforge.net/ W3C RDF Validator: Given an RDF/XML document, this web application validates it and displays it as triples, RDF/XML, or as a graph in a variety of formats including PNG, SVG, and isaViz. http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ Protégé Ontology Editor: We mostly use text editors for developing ontologies because we've occasionally found Protege to be unstable with large complicated OWL models. However, many people like Protege (a Java desktop application) which was developed by Standford's Medical Informatics group. http://protege.stanford.edu There are also a variety of triple store implementations as well as other frameworks like Kowari. However, we can't recommend them because we either haven't used them or didn't like them. -Steve Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote: > Bob Morris wrote: > >> OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are >> developing discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology >> development tools, and I need to educate myself about where are the >> tools and frameworks for building applications and for databinding. > > > Bob, > > I've sent this a couple of months ago to the list, but it might > still be useful: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials > > Click on "Tools" link and it will take to the bottom of the page > (direct link: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials#tools). > There's a list of RDF tools in there (Jena, Kowari, SOFA, PHP RDF and > others). I didn't read that material myself, so I'm not sure whether you > will find what you want. Let us know if you find anything useful. > Best regards, > > Ricardo

1 0

Re: RDF application building and databinding tools
by Benjamin H Szekely 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by data binding but Jastor provides a layer on top of Jena for manipulating ontology based RDF in Java. - Ben Ricardo Scachetti Pereira <ricardo(a)TDWG.ORG> Sent by: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project <TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> 02/13/2006 08:04 PM Please respond to Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project <TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> To TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU cc Subject Re: RDF application building and databinding tools Bob, It looks like I can only send one link per email. Here's another tool: Sparta, a data binding API for Python. Here is the link: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2004/05/15/sparta Cheers, Ricardo Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote: > Bob Morris wrote: > >> OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are >> developing discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology >> development tools, and I need to educate myself about where are the >> tools and frameworks for building applications and for databinding. > > > Bob, > > I've sent this a couple of months ago to the list, but it might > still be useful: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials > > Click on "Tools" link and it will take to the bottom of the page > (direct link: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/Tutorials#tools). There's a > list of RDF tools in there (Jena, Kowari, SOFA, PHP RDF and others). I > didn't read that material myself, so I'm not sure whether you will > find what you want. Let us know if you find anything useful. > Best regards, > > Ricardo > >

1 0

Re: [Tdwg-tag] RDF versus GML; old but relevant (?)
by Phillip C. Dibner 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

All: I sent this yesterday without being properly subscribed to the mailing lists. Apologies to anyone for whom this is a repeat. Flip From: Phillip C. Dibner <pcd(a)ecosystem.com> Date: February 12, 2006 2:21:49 PM PST To: Stan Blum <sblum(a)calacademy.org> Cc: <tdwg-guid(a)lists.tdwg.org> <tdwg-guid(a)lists.tdwg.org> <tdwg-guid(a)lists.tdwg.org>, <tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org> <tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org> <tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org>, Donald Hobern <dhobern(a)gbif.org>, John Wieczorek <tuco(a)berkeley.edu>, <renato(a)cria.org.br> <renato(a)cria.org.br> <renato(a)cria.org.br>, Reed Beaman <reed.beaman(a)yale.edu>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox(a)csiro.au> Subject: Re: RDF versus GML; old but relevant (?) Stan, Thanks for the message. You've mentioned some items that are central to several discussions in which I've been engaged during the past few months. I've taken the liberty of copying Simon Cox on this response since, as you know, he's quite knowledgeable about these issues, and also very open to the use of other languages despite his participation in the authorship of GML. Simon, I'm hoping you (as well as anyone else who wants to contribute) will correct any misstatements that I make here. I take your message to contain two fundamental points. Responding to each of them: First point: > I (we) desperately need to solve the puzzle of how to compose (re-use) > conceptual specifications. Can we create a flexible system of base > classes that can be snapped together to make useful data exchange > applications? I think this is one of, if not THE most import tasks > for the incipient TDWG Architecture group. In short, absolutely. I have no doubt that we can create such a flexible collection of classes. The key is in your choice of the word "conceptual." If we get the information model right, we can express it in any of several languages. Any given language (even UML, I'm given to understand) has its limitations and inherent biases, but if we develop appropriate intuitive and formal understandings of the relationships - mappings - between the various expressions, we'll have achieved the goal that I think you correctly identify as the most important task for the Architecture group. The question is how to factor them, and perhaps how, if at all, to identify them as belonging to the same family of specifications by defining an abstract DarwinCore base class. Second point, relating to Chris Goad's comments (mapbureau.com) on the non-composibility of GML (which I won't reproduce inline here): Chris is a great thinker and very knowledgeable about these technologies, but I think his comments leave out some important points. There are arguably two different notions of what GML is. In one sense, GML is a formal specification written in XML Schema, well on its way to becoming an ISO-blessed International Standard. As such, it does impose the formal requirement that features derive from gml:AbstractFeatureType. I view this partly as a by-product of the way that XML Schema works, and partly as the reasonable decision by the designers of GML to provide a generic, abstract notion of what a Feature is, and by the way provide some minimal properties that every Feature has. Whether this is a problem or not depends on what you want to do with it. GML definitions can be used for many purposes. The place where you have no choice but to use them is where you want to make information available through an OGC-compliant Web Feature Server, and accessible to Web Feature Service client applications. That is very simply because these software applications have been written to comply with the published specification; the motivation for using it is simply that there are a great and increasing number of such implementations. Ultimately, this makes the capability to collate and analyze biocollections or other data significantly more accessible and less costly. Note that the data need only be expressed as (XML Schema / )GML from the point where they exit the server to the point where they enter the client application. It is necessary to have a well-defined and broadly accepted GML schema for this, but the data need not reside in the source datastore in this format. Nonetheless, serving the source data as (XML Schema / )GML is much easier if there is a natural mapping of the source data to (XML Schema / )GML. This leads to the other notion of what GML is: an information model. GML can be expressed in other languages than XML Schema. As many of you know, an early version of GML was written in RDF, but the authors decided to use XML Schema instead because at the time, tools to support RDF (and perhaps the RDF language itself?) were too immature to support extensive information modeling, application development, and deployment. UML can also be used to express the GML model. Simon Cox's web page at https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/Xmml/UmlGml should be required reading for anyone who wants to explore these issues more deeply. That page provides substance to the above claim. (Note that the page might challenge you to login, but this is only for editing privileges. Cancel the challenges and you will ultimately reach the page. I'll also put in a plug here for https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/Xmml/ ObservationsAndMeasurements, which I expect to explore more completely with respect to DarwinCore in the late March / April timeframe.) The distinction between these two notions of GML is blurred a bit by the fact that GML expressions of geographic and other features ( / objects) are sometimes used for purposes other than service through a WFS server or access by inherently GML-compatible geoanalysis applications. This may be a matter of convenience for data that are to be used for multiple applications, or because of the implementors' familiarity with GML, or it might be due to limitations of other languages. For example, I've been given to understand (although I'm not familiar with the issues myself) that numeric data of any sort are very cumbersome to use with RDF. If true, that would be a severe limitation for many kinds of geoinformatic analysis. Regardless of when and where we choose to implement biocollections descriptions and related data as XML Schema / GML documents, I do feel it's essential to maintain the equivalent of the Class-property / Object-property pattern. This is inherent to GML, it is part and parcel of what RDF is, and it is substantially the point of the ISO 19103 / ISO 19109 metamodel for object definitions. If we do this, then regardless of the longevity of XML Schema / GML as a broadly-supported standard, our data will be translatable to RDF, applications built, e.g., upon UML/XMI representations, or whatever other technologies may come to the fore in future decades. What do I think we should ultimately do? I would like to see our classes defined as GML - UML, and I would like our outputs to include XSLD documents that perform the translation of the corresponding XMI to formal (XML Schema /) GML. My own provisional implementations will be in (XML Schema /) GML to start, but I consider that an interim step. In answer to Stan's final question, I think it would also be a useful interim step for TDWG, for non-spatial as well as spatial biodiversity information. I would also like to see provisional translations of UML DarwinCore to RDF, and for these to be done in coordination with, or at least with coordinated awareness of, other groups exploring the whole question of how properly to express the GML information model in RDF. I see that Roger Hyam has also responded to Stan's mail, and that his comments are not incompatible with mine. I hope this note provides a useful addition to the discussion. Best regards, Flip On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Blum, Stan wrote: > I (we) desperately need to solve the puzzle of how to compose (re-use) > conceptual specifications. Can we create a flexible system of base > classes that can be snapped together to make useful data exchange > applications? I think this is one of, if not THE most import tasks > for the incipient TDWG Architecture group. > > So I'm trying to educate myself about RDF versus XML (and their > respective schema tools). I came across this comment on RDF versus > GML, http://www.mapbureau.com/gml/, which contained this: > > <excerpt> > [...] GML is not directly composable with other XML languages. > Entities that are described by other languages cannot legally play the > role of geographic features in GML. This because all types of > geographic features are required to derive from the GML abstract class > gml:AbstractFeatureType. Even if it were not for this formal > requirement, the lack of conventions about how to represent even > simple semantic notions in XML languages would prevent effective > integration of GML with XML languages developed independently. > > The non-composability of GML requires that it absorb as application > schemas the multitude of other domains to which geographical > information is relevant. Failing this, non-standard mechanisms of some > kind must be used to relate GML content with external data. > > Indeed, GML positions itself as a universal, rather than > geography-specific, semantic standard by including its own general > formalisms for collections, assertion of properties (in a style very > much like RDF), time and processes, and reference between content in > separate files (via Xlink). GML can be viewed as an alternative not > just to geography in RDF, but to RDF itself. > </excerpt> > > This seems like a problem for us because some aspects of our > biodiversity information are decidedly not spatial. Is this a problem > with XML Schema generally or just the way it was used to create GML? > Several TDWGers are getting enthusiastic about RDF, despite the > cautions of McCool (referenced by Bob Morris earlier on the TDWG-GUID > list). Should we go ahead and cast DarwinCore as a GML application > while we gear up for a coordinated switch to RDF? > > -Stan Phillip C. Dibner Ecosystem Associates (650) 948-3537 (650) 948-7895 Fax

1 0

Re: Thoughts
by Donald Hobern 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

Bob, I'm sorry that the conclusions of the meeting still seem so unclear. I'll try to summarise a few points of importance. Please come back with your thoughts/exasperation on any or all of these. 1. The general conclusion of the meeting was that an RDF-based model was desirable for content as well as description (recognising that in most of our existing standards the distinction is blurred). However we expect to use the next few months to clarify what will work for our needs and I can still foresee several possible variant solutions if we are not satisfied with a full RDF-based approach (e.g. RDF Dublin Core for metadata and tighter formalization of how we provide the rest of the information as data, including use of versions; or, metadata containing a URL to retrieve our content data from a DiGIR/BioCASe/TAPIR provider etc.; or, working with IBM to introduce a modification to the LSID specification; etc.). 2. We recognised that a recast of TDWG standards into an RDF-based representation was not trivial, but a change at least somewhat like this (from large document-based models to reusable data objects) is in any case needed for many other reasons (better re-use, less churn from versioning; simpler extensibility, etc.). 3. The GUID workshop is not a totally isolated activity. The new TDWG Architecture Group (TAG) will be meeting separately to consider how to standardise our data modeling and integrate better with other standards (such as WFS and RDF). It would be a major step forward for us to model our standards in a framework that makes our OO-model explicit (rather than relying on unstated implications of structure) and where it is also easy for us to extend it with additional concepts/properties as required. I hope that we can agree our actual approach through the TAG discussions. <personalAside>For what it's worth, my own vision up to now had been for something like UML modeling followed by simultaneous generation of OWL-Lite and XML Schema definitions for each data class (the XML Schema representation being regarded as a convenience tool for generating a document that - I hope - would perfectly correspond to the more semantically clear OWL-Lite document). The advantage of leap-frogging RDF to some form of OWL is that we could have the semantic foundation to our models but still retain something that has a familiar structure.</personalAside> 4. It is important to note that the suggested prototype activities are prefixed, "The potential prototypes.". Right now I would expect several of these only to test out the assignment of LSIDs to data objects and their use for retrieving the objects independently of full LSID resolution or RDF mapping. I believe that the first real LSID-resolver test is likely to be with Darwin Core (which is just about RDF-ready immediately). We want to use the next few months to play around with LSIDs in whatever areas we can. Part of the purpose is to allow us to understand what software we need to develop before trying it on a larger scale. It will be part of my job to find ways to get such software developed. By the way, the GUID wiki is open for comments. You can add pages to the wiki, or use the comments link at the bottom of the page (these are WikkaWakka comments that are shown like a set of footnotes). As an alternative I have added a new page for comments on this report: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID1ReportComments Thanks as ever for your input, Donald --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern(a)gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 --------------------------------------------------------------- _____ From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Morris Sent: 13 February 2006 05:09 To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: Thoughts I'm quite confused from the meeting reports whether there was some argument accepted that LSID metadata in RDF should represent the \content/ of the current concerns of TDWG, including TCS, DC, ABCD, SDD, and the impending new groups, or merely \describe/ the databases against which answers are rendered in those content standards. For example, if a taxon concept is given an LSID, is the metadata returned expected to be a replacement for the current XML constrained by TCS? RDF certainly can encode a taxon concept and address the relations it encodes, but I'm unaware of applications of LSID metadata of objects in a database where the datum is encoded, though in many cases RDF could rationally make a claim to do so. I agree with Sally:Where's the robust, widely accepted killer app? I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't yet permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll move it when the GUID wiki is open. http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful Depending on the resolutiuon to my cofusion expressed in the first paragraph, I am somewhere been vigorously opposed and neutral on RDF, for reasons in the above linked RDFConsideredHarmful. I'm also amazed that a whole crew of volunteers seem to be persuaded (or appointed) to drop everything they are doing and take on what may or may not be a substantial piece of software engineering to in the next three months. Either there were a lot of persuasive arguments that I couldn't see in what I've been through so far in the report, or somewhere there is sitting an LSID resolver package that just needs a little configuration. mod_LSID??? I guess I'll learn which from Greg Riccardi. I sure hope it's the latter. Bob On 2/12/06, Roderic Page <r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote: For my take on McCool's articles see http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/rob-mccool-on-rethinking-semantic- web.html Regards Rod On 11 Feb 2006, at 20:44, Bob Morris wrote: > > Rethinking the semantic Web. Part I > McCool, R.; > Internet Computing, IEEE > Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005 Page(s):88, 86 - 87 > Abstract: > > The semantic Web is a compelling vision, in which the World Wide Web > will include a notion of meaning in data and services. Intelligent > agents will exchange information and rules for how to interact with > that information, with or without human intervention; appointments > will be automatically scheduled; and automated agents will select and > invoke services. Information will be easy to find without depending > solely on keywords. In part one of this column, the author propose > several reasons that this vision hasn't yet been adopted despite > substantial research funding in the US and European Union (EU). These > reasons will provide the foundation for a new approach, which propose > in part two. > > McCool is one of the architects of a number of RDF and RDF related > systems. This doesn't bear very much on LSID vs. something else, but > it does argue that RDF is burdened by its weight and hasn't achieved > certain of its aims. A question arises about whether this has > implications for other applications that have ontological overtones, > including many of TDWGs. > > The second columm is in the January issue of the same journal. > > > > > On 2/10/06, Sally Hinchcliffe < S.Hinchcliffe(a)kew.org> wrote:Hi Rod, >> Your comment facility is down or I would have added this to the blog >> ... >> I think that most of the talk re serving XML from LSIDs was by way of >> an upgrade path rather than as a final goal. As you say (rightly or >> wrongly) the community has put a lot of effort into XML schemas and >> it worried me (and others) that tying LSIDs to RDF might mean that >> the LSID baby got thrown out with the RDF bathwater as the community >> rejected it wholesale. But I was persuaded this wouldn't happen and >> now I face some scepticism here at Kew about the benefits of RDF so a >> killer app would be good... >> >> On the meeting itself, yes it was frustrating (and interesting and >> useful as well) and it struck me on my return that we might have got >> further had we had some professional (and neutral) facilitators - not >> to say that the chairs didn't do a good job getting us all to a >> decision in the end, but that we are all (me included) so parti pris >> and bound up in the subject that herding cats didn't even come close >> ... For the next meeting the decisions will be harder and more >> concrete and there will be a lot to decide. It might help having >> people who know how to facilitate useful debate and close off some of >> the blind alleys and circular pathways we have a tendency to wander >> into >> Sally >> >> >> >> > For those at the workshop, it was great to meet you and to discuss >> > GUIDs. I've posted a personal view on proceedings on one of my >> blogs: >> > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/globally-unique-identifiers.html >> . >> > Comments are welcome. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Rod >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> > ---------------------------------------- >> > Professor Roderic D. M. Page >> > Editor, Systematic Biology >> > DEEB, IBLS >> > Graham Kerr Building >> > University of Glasgow >> > Glasgow G12 8QP >> > United Kingdom >> > >> > Phone:+44 141 330 4778 >> > Fax:+44 141 330 2792 >> > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk >> > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html >> > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html >> > >> > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic >> > Biologists Website: <http://systematicbiology.org> http://systematicbiology.org >> > Search for taxon names at >> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ >> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org >> >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 >> *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Thoughts
by Bob Morris 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

On 2/13/06, Bob Morris <morris.bob(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are developing > discussion of the requirments and availability of RDF tools. I'm aware only > of ontology development tools and machine reasoning tools, and I need to > educate myself about where are the tools and frameworks for building > applications and, since the enterprise at hand is database intensive, for > databinding, and for examples of systems built with those tools. Thanks Bob On 2/13/06, Donald Hobern <dhobern(a)gbif.org> wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > I'm sorry that the conclusions of the meeting still seem so unclear. > > I'll try to summarise a few points of importance. Please come back with > > your thoughts/exasperation on any or all of these. > > > > > > > > 1. The general conclusion of the meeting was that an RDF-based > > model was desirable for content as well as description (recognising that in > > most of our existing standards the distinction is blurred). However we > > expect to use the next few months to clarify what will work for our needs > > and I can still foresee several possible variant solutions if we are not > > satisfied with a full RDF-based approach (e.g. RDF Dublin Core for > > metadata and tighter formalization of how we provide the rest of the > > information as data, including use of versions; or, metadata containing a > > URL to retrieve our content data from a DiGIR/BioCASe/TAPIR provider etc.; > > or, working with IBM to introduce a modification to the LSID specification; > > etc.). > > 2. We recognised that a recast of TDWG standards into an RDF-based > > representation was not trivial, but a change at least somewhat like this > > (from large document-based models to reusable data objects) is in any case > > needed for many other reasons (better re-use, less churn from versioning; > > simpler extensibility, etc.). > > 3. The GUID workshop is not a totally isolated activity. The new > > TDWG Architecture Group (TAG) will be meeting separately to consider how to > > standardise our data modeling and integrate better with other standards > > (such as WFS and RDF). It would be a major step forward for us to model our > > standards in a framework that makes our OO-model explicit (rather than > > relying on unstated implications of structure) and where it is also easy for > > us to extend it with additional concepts/properties as required. I hope > > that we can agree our actual approach through the TAG discussions. > > <personalAside>For what it's worth, my own vision up to now had been for > > something like UML modeling followed by simultaneous generation of OWL-Lite > > and XML Schema definitions for each data class (the XML Schema > > representation being regarded as a convenience tool for generating a > > document that – I hope – would perfectly correspond to the more semantically > > clear OWL-Lite document). The advantage of leap-frogging RDF to some form > > of OWL is that we could have the semantic foundation to our models but still > > retain something that has a familiar structure.</personalAside> > > 4. It is important to note that the suggested prototype activities > > are prefixed, "The *potential* prototypes…". Right now I would > > expect several of these only to test out the assignment of LSIDs to data > > objects and their use for retrieving the objects independently of full LSID > > resolution or RDF mapping. I believe that the first real LSID-resolver test > > is likely to be with Darwin Core (which is just about RDF-ready > > immediately). We want to use the next few months to play around with LSIDs > > in whatever areas we can. Part of the purpose is to allow us to understand > > what software we need to develop before trying it on a larger scale. It > > will be part of my job to find ways to get such software developed. > > > > > > > > By the way, the GUID wiki is open for comments. You can add pages to > > the wiki, or use the comments link at the bottom of the page (these are > > WikkaWakka comments that are shown like a set of footnotes). As an > > alternative I have added a new page for comments on this report: > > > > > > > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID1ReportComments > > > > > > > > Thanks as ever for your input, > > > > > > > > Donald > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Donald Hobern (dhobern(a)gbif.org) > > Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability > > Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat > > Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark > > Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto: > > TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Bob Morris > > *Sent:* 13 February 2006 05:09 > > *To:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > > *Subject:* Re: Thoughts > > > > > > > > I'm quite confused from the meeting reports whether there was some > > argument accepted that LSID metadata in RDF should represent the \content/ > > of the current concerns of TDWG, including TCS, DC, ABCD, SDD, and the > > impending new groups, or merely \describe/ the databases against which > > answers are rendered in those content standards. For example, if a taxon > > concept is given an LSID, is the metadata returned expected to be a > > replacement for the current XML constrained by TCS? RDF certainly can > > encode a taxon concept and address the relations it encodes, but I'm unaware > > of applications of LSID metadata of objects in a database where the datum is > > encoded, though in many cases RDF could rationally make a claim to do so. I > > agree with Sally:Where's the robust, widely accepted killer app? > > > > I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't > > yet permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll move it > > when the GUID wiki is open. http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful > > > > > > Depending on the resolutiuon to my cofusion expressed in the first > > paragraph, I am somewhere been vigorously opposed and neutral on RDF, for > > reasons in the above linked RDFConsideredHarmful. > > > > I'm also amazed that a whole crew of volunteers seem to be persuaded (or > > appointed) to drop everything they are doing and take on what may or may not > > be a substantial piece of software engineering to in the next three months. > > Either there were a lot of persuasive arguments that I couldn't see in what > > I've been through so far in the report, or somewhere there is sitting an > > LSID resolver package that just needs a little configuration. mod_LSID??? I > > guess I'll learn which from Greg Riccardi. I sure hope it's the latter. > > > > Bob > > > > On 2/12/06, *Roderic Page* <r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > For my take on McCool's articles see > > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/rob-mccool-on-rethinking-semantic- > > web.html > > > > > > Regards > > > > Rod > > > > On 11 Feb 2006, at 20:44, Bob Morris wrote: > > > > > > > > Rethinking the semantic Web. Part I > > > McCool, R.; > > > Internet Computing, IEEE > > > Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005 Page(s):88, 86 - 87 > > > Abstract: > > > > > > The semantic Web is a compelling vision, in which the World Wide Web > > > will include a notion of meaning in data and services. Intelligent > > > agents will exchange information and rules for how to interact with > > > that information, with or without human intervention; appointments > > > will be automatically scheduled; and automated agents will select and > > > invoke services. Information will be easy to find without depending > > > solely on keywords. In part one of this column, the author propose > > > several reasons that this vision hasn't yet been adopted despite > > > substantial research funding in the US and European Union (EU). These > > > reasons will provide the foundation for a new approach, which propose > > > in part two. > > > > > > McCool is one of the architects of a number of RDF and RDF related > > > systems. This doesn't bear very much on LSID vs. something else, but > > > it does argue that RDF is burdened by its weight and hasn't achieved > > > certain of its aims. A question arises about whether this has > > > implications for other applications that have ontological overtones, > > > including many of TDWGs. > > > > > > The second columm is in the January issue of the same journal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/10/06, Sally Hinchcliffe < S.Hinchcliffe(a)kew.org> wrote:Hi Rod, > > >> Your comment facility is down or I would have added this to the blog > > >> ... > > >> I think that most of the talk re serving XML from LSIDs was by way of > > > > >> an upgrade path rather than as a final goal. As you say (rightly or > > >> wrongly) the community has put a lot of effort into XML schemas and > > >> it worried me (and others) that tying LSIDs to RDF might mean that > > >> the LSID baby got thrown out with the RDF bathwater as the community > > >> rejected it wholesale. But I was persuaded this wouldn't happen and > > >> now I face some scepticism here at Kew about the benefits of RDF so a > > > > >> killer app would be good... > > >> > > >> On the meeting itself, yes it was frustrating (and interesting and > > >> useful as well) and it struck me on my return that we might have got > > >> further had we had some professional (and neutral) facilitators - not > > > > >> to say that the chairs didn't do a good job getting us all to a > > >> decision in the end, but that we are all (me included) so parti pris > > >> and bound up in the subject that herding cats didn't even come close > > >> ... For the next meeting the decisions will be harder and more > > >> concrete and there will be a lot to decide. It might help having > > >> people who know how to facilitate useful debate and close off some of > > > > >> the blind alleys and circular pathways we have a tendency to wander > > >> into > > >> Sally > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > For those at the workshop, it was great to meet you and to discuss > > >> > GUIDs. I've posted a personal view on proceedings on one of my > > >> blogs: > > >> > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/globally-unique-identifiers.html > > > > >> . > > >> > Comments are welcome. > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > > > >> > Rod > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> -- > > >> > ---------------------------------------- > > >> > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > > >> > Editor, Systematic Biology > > >> > DEEB, IBLS > > >> > Graham Kerr Building > > >> > University of Glasgow > > >> > Glasgow G12 8QP > > >> > United Kingdom > > >> > > > >> > Phone:+44 141 330 4778 > > >> > Fax:+44 141 330 2792 > > >> > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk > > >> > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > > >> > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > > >> > > > >> > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > > >> > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org > > >> > Search for taxon names at > > >> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/> > > >> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > > >> > > >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe > > >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > > >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 > > >> *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------------------------- > > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > > Editor, Systematic Biology > > DEEB, IBLS > > Graham Kerr Building > > University of Glasgow > > Glasgow G12 8QP > > United Kingdom > > > > Phone: +44 141 330 4778 > > Fax: +44 141 330 2792 > > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk > > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > > > > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org > > Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/> > > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new > > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Thoughts
by Bob Morris 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are developing discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology development tools, and I need to educate myself about where are the tools and frameworks for building applications and for databinding. On 2/13/06, Donald Hobern <dhobern(a)gbif.org> wrote: > > Bob, > > > > I'm sorry that the conclusions of the meeting still seem so unclear. I'll > try to summarise a few points of importance. Please come back with your > thoughts/exasperation on any or all of these. > > > > 1. The general conclusion of the meeting was that an RDF-based model > was desirable for content as well as description (recognising that in most > of our existing standards the distinction is blurred). However we expect to > use the next few months to clarify what will work for our needs and I can > still foresee several possible variant solutions if we are not satisfied > with a full RDF-based approach (e.g. RDF Dublin Core for metadata > and tighter formalization of how we provide the rest of the information as > data, including use of versions; or, metadata containing a URL to retrieve > our content data from a DiGIR/BioCASe/TAPIR provider etc.; or, working with > IBM to introduce a modification to the LSID specification; etc.). > 2. We recognised that a recast of TDWG standards into an RDF-based > representation was not trivial, but a change at least somewhat like this > (from large document-based models to reusable data objects) is in any case > needed for many other reasons (better re-use, less churn from versioning; > simpler extensibility, etc.). > 3. The GUID workshop is not a totally isolated activity. The new > TDWG Architecture Group (TAG) will be meeting separately to consider how to > standardise our data modeling and integrate better with other standards > (such as WFS and RDF). It would be a major step forward for us to model our > standards in a framework that makes our OO-model explicit (rather than > relying on unstated implications of structure) and where it is also easy for > us to extend it with additional concepts/properties as required. I hope > that we can agree our actual approach through the TAG discussions. > <personalAside>For what it's worth, my own vision up to now had been for > something like UML modeling followed by simultaneous generation of OWL-Lite > and XML Schema definitions for each data class (the XML Schema > representation being regarded as a convenience tool for generating a > document that – I hope – would perfectly correspond to the more semantically > clear OWL-Lite document). The advantage of leap-frogging RDF to some form > of OWL is that we could have the semantic foundation to our models but still > retain something that has a familiar structure.</personalAside> > 4. It is important to note that the suggested prototype activities > are prefixed, "The *potential* prototypes…". Right now I would > expect several of these only to test out the assignment of LSIDs to data > objects and their use for retrieving the objects independently of full LSID > resolution or RDF mapping. I believe that the first real LSID-resolver test > is likely to be with Darwin Core (which is just about RDF-ready > immediately). We want to use the next few months to play around with LSIDs > in whatever areas we can. Part of the purpose is to allow us to understand > what software we need to develop before trying it on a larger scale. It > will be part of my job to find ways to get such software developed. > > > > By the way, the GUID wiki is open for comments. You can add pages to the > wiki, or use the comments link at the bottom of the page (these are > WikkaWakka comments that are shown like a set of footnotes). As an > alternative I have added a new page for comments on this report: > > > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID1ReportComments > > > > Thanks as ever for your input, > > > > Donald > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Donald Hobern (dhobern(a)gbif.org) > Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability > Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat > Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark > Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto: > TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Bob Morris > *Sent:* 13 February 2006 05:09 > *To:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > *Subject:* Re: Thoughts > > > > I'm quite confused from the meeting reports whether there was some > argument accepted that LSID metadata in RDF should represent the \content/ > of the current concerns of TDWG, including TCS, DC, ABCD, SDD, and the > impending new groups, or merely \describe/ the databases against which > answers are rendered in those content standards. For example, if a taxon > concept is given an LSID, is the metadata returned expected to be a > replacement for the current XML constrained by TCS? RDF certainly can > encode a taxon concept and address the relations it encodes, but I'm unaware > of applications of LSID metadata of objects in a database where the datum is > encoded, though in many cases RDF could rationally make a claim to do so. I > agree with Sally:Where's the robust, widely accepted killer app? > > I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't yet > permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll move it > when the GUID wiki is open. > http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful > > Depending on the resolutiuon to my cofusion expressed in the first > paragraph, I am somewhere been vigorously opposed and neutral on RDF, for > reasons in the above linked RDFConsideredHarmful. > > I'm also amazed that a whole crew of volunteers seem to be persuaded (or > appointed) to drop everything they are doing and take on what may or may not > be a substantial piece of software engineering to in the next three months. > Either there were a lot of persuasive arguments that I couldn't see in what > I've been through so far in the report, or somewhere there is sitting an > LSID resolver package that just needs a little configuration. mod_LSID??? I > guess I'll learn which from Greg Riccardi. I sure hope it's the latter. > > Bob > > On 2/12/06, *Roderic Page* <r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > For my take on McCool's articles see > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/rob-mccool-on-rethinking-semantic- > web.html > > > Regards > > Rod > > On 11 Feb 2006, at 20:44, Bob Morris wrote: > > > > > Rethinking the semantic Web. Part I > > McCool, R.; > > Internet Computing, IEEE > > Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005 Page(s):88, 86 - 87 > > Abstract: > > > > The semantic Web is a compelling vision, in which the World Wide Web > > will include a notion of meaning in data and services. Intelligent > > agents will exchange information and rules for how to interact with > > that information, with or without human intervention; appointments > > will be automatically scheduled; and automated agents will select and > > invoke services. Information will be easy to find without depending > > solely on keywords. In part one of this column, the author propose > > several reasons that this vision hasn't yet been adopted despite > > substantial research funding in the US and European Union (EU). These > > reasons will provide the foundation for a new approach, which propose > > in part two. > > > > McCool is one of the architects of a number of RDF and RDF related > > systems. This doesn't bear very much on LSID vs. something else, but > > it does argue that RDF is burdened by its weight and hasn't achieved > > certain of its aims. A question arises about whether this has > > implications for other applications that have ontological overtones, > > including many of TDWGs. > > > > The second columm is in the January issue of the same journal. > > > > > > > > > > On 2/10/06, Sally Hinchcliffe < S.Hinchcliffe(a)kew.org> wrote:Hi Rod, > >> Your comment facility is down or I would have added this to the blog > >> ... > >> I think that most of the talk re serving XML from LSIDs was by way of > >> an upgrade path rather than as a final goal. As you say (rightly or > >> wrongly) the community has put a lot of effort into XML schemas and > >> it worried me (and others) that tying LSIDs to RDF might mean that > >> the LSID baby got thrown out with the RDF bathwater as the community > >> rejected it wholesale. But I was persuaded this wouldn't happen and > >> now I face some scepticism here at Kew about the benefits of RDF so a > >> killer app would be good... > >> > >> On the meeting itself, yes it was frustrating (and interesting and > >> useful as well) and it struck me on my return that we might have got > >> further had we had some professional (and neutral) facilitators - not > >> to say that the chairs didn't do a good job getting us all to a > >> decision in the end, but that we are all (me included) so parti pris > >> and bound up in the subject that herding cats didn't even come close > >> ... For the next meeting the decisions will be harder and more > >> concrete and there will be a lot to decide. It might help having > >> people who know how to facilitate useful debate and close off some of > >> the blind alleys and circular pathways we have a tendency to wander > >> into > >> Sally > >> > >> > >> > >> > For those at the workshop, it was great to meet you and to discuss > >> > GUIDs. I've posted a personal view on proceedings on one of my > >> blogs: > >> > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/globally-unique-identifiers.html > >> . > >> > Comments are welcome. > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > Rod > >> > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -- > >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > >> > Editor, Systematic Biology > >> > DEEB, IBLS > >> > Graham Kerr Building > >> > University of Glasgow > >> > Glasgow G12 8QP > >> > United Kingdom > >> > > >> > Phone:+44 141 330 4778 > >> > Fax:+44 141 330 2792 > >> > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk > >> > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > >> > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > >> > > >> > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > >> > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org > >> > Search for taxon names at > >> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/> > >> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > >> > >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe > >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 > >> *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------------------------------- > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > Editor, Systematic Biology > DEEB, IBLS > Graham Kerr Building > University of Glasgow > Glasgow G12 8QP > United Kingdom > > Phone: +44 141 330 4778 > Fax: +44 141 330 2792 > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org > Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com > > >

1 0

GUID-1 report wiki page locked for edit (was: Thoughts)
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 13 Feb '06

13 Feb '06

Bob, The GUID-1 report wiki page is locked because we wanted it to express what was discussed and agreed during the workshop and prevent it from becoming an evolving document. We could have posted the report in pdf format only, but that would decrease readability. Despite the appearances, we want to encourage people to discuss the outcomes of the workshop. For that reason, we have created a page for comments at: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID1ReportComments. It links from the report page. I took the liberty of adding your post from SDD wiki there. Feel free to modify it in any way you like. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage others to add to the discussion there. Thanks for your valuable contributions. Regards, Ricardo Bob Morris wrote: > I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't > yet permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll > move it when the GUID wiki is open. > http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful

1 0

Re: Thoughts
by Bob Morris 12 Feb '06

12 Feb '06

I'm quite confused from the meeting reports whether there was some argument accepted that LSID metadata in RDF should represent the \content/ of the current concerns of TDWG, including TCS, DC, ABCD, SDD, and the impending new groups, or merely \describe/ the databases against which answers are rendered in those content standards. For example, if a taxon concept is given an LSID, is the metadata returned expected to be a replacement for the current XML constrained by TCS? RDF certainly can encode a taxon concept and address the relations it encodes, but I'm unaware of applications of LSID metadata of objects in a database where the datum is encoded, though in many cases RDF could rationally make a claim to do so. I agree with Sally:Where's the robust, widely accepted killer app? I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't yet permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll move it when the GUID wiki is open. http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful Depending on the resolutiuon to my cofusion expressed in the first paragraph, I am somewhere been vigorously opposed and neutral on RDF, for reasons in the above linked RDFConsideredHarmful. I'm also amazed that a whole crew of volunteers seem to be persuaded (or appointed) to drop everything they are doing and take on what may or may not be a substantial piece of software engineering to in the next three months. Either there were a lot of persuasive arguments that I couldn't see in what I've been through so far in the report, or somewhere there is sitting an LSID resolver package that just needs a little configuration. mod_LSID??? I guess I'll learn which from Greg Riccardi. I sure hope it's the latter. Bob On 2/12/06, Roderic Page <r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > For my take on McCool's articles see > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/rob-mccool-on-rethinking-semantic- > web.html > > > Regards > > Rod > > On 11 Feb 2006, at 20:44, Bob Morris wrote: > > > > > Rethinking the semantic Web. Part I > > McCool, R.; > > Internet Computing, IEEE > > Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005 Page(s):88, 86 - 87 > > Abstract: > > > > The semantic Web is a compelling vision, in which the World Wide Web > > will include a notion of meaning in data and services. Intelligent > > agents will exchange information and rules for how to interact with > > that information, with or without human intervention; appointments > > will be automatically scheduled; and automated agents will select and > > invoke services. Information will be easy to find without depending > > solely on keywords. In part one of this column, the author propose > > several reasons that this vision hasn't yet been adopted despite > > substantial research funding in the US and European Union (EU). These > > reasons will provide the foundation for a new approach, which propose > > in part two. > > > > McCool is one of the architects of a number of RDF and RDF related > > systems. This doesn't bear very much on LSID vs. something else, but > > it does argue that RDF is burdened by its weight and hasn't achieved > > certain of its aims. A question arises about whether this has > > implications for other applications that have ontological overtones, > > including many of TDWGs. > > > > The second columm is in the January issue of the same journal. > > > > > > > > > > On 2/10/06, Sally Hinchcliffe < S.Hinchcliffe(a)kew.org> wrote:Hi Rod, > >> Your comment facility is down or I would have added this to the blog > >> ... > >> I think that most of the talk re serving XML from LSIDs was by way of > >> an upgrade path rather than as a final goal. As you say (rightly or > >> wrongly) the community has put a lot of effort into XML schemas and > >> it worried me (and others) that tying LSIDs to RDF might mean that > >> the LSID baby got thrown out with the RDF bathwater as the community > >> rejected it wholesale. But I was persuaded this wouldn't happen and > >> now I face some scepticism here at Kew about the benefits of RDF so a > >> killer app would be good... > >> > >> On the meeting itself, yes it was frustrating (and interesting and > >> useful as well) and it struck me on my return that we might have got > >> further had we had some professional (and neutral) facilitators - not > >> to say that the chairs didn't do a good job getting us all to a > >> decision in the end, but that we are all (me included) so parti pris > >> and bound up in the subject that herding cats didn't even come close > >> ... For the next meeting the decisions will be harder and more > >> concrete and there will be a lot to decide. It might help having > >> people who know how to facilitate useful debate and close off some of > >> the blind alleys and circular pathways we have a tendency to wander > >> into > >> Sally > >> > >> > >> > >> > For those at the workshop, it was great to meet you and to discuss > >> > GUIDs. I've posted a personal view on proceedings on one of my > >> blogs: > >> > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/globally-unique-identifiers.html > >> . > >> > Comments are welcome. > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > Rod > >> > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -- > >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > >> > Editor, Systematic Biology > >> > DEEB, IBLS > >> > Graham Kerr Building > >> > University of Glasgow > >> > Glasgow G12 8QP > >> > United Kingdom > >> > > >> > Phone:+44 141 330 4778 > >> > Fax:+44 141 330 2792 > >> > email:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk > >> > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > >> > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > >> > > >> > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > >> > Biologists Website:http://systematicbiology.org > >> > Search for taxon names at > >> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ > >> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > >> > >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe > >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 > >> *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------------------------------- > Professor Roderic D. M. Page > Editor, Systematic Biology > DEEB, IBLS > Graham Kerr Building > University of Glasgow > Glasgow G12 8QP > United Kingdom > > Phone: +44 141 330 4778 > Fax: +44 141 330 2792 > email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html > > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org > Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com >

1 0