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.
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@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:
Sent: 13 February 2006 05:09
To: TDWG-GUID@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@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,
>
> 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
> 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@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
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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,
>> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
>> *** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Professor Roderic D. M. Page
Editor, Systematic Biology
DEEB, IBLS
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
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com