On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

Shouldn't the RDF for DwC link DwC:lat to geo:lat (using some subtype or better yet equivalency relation)? And shouldn't hence Linked Data browsers be able to use DwC:lat in the same way as geo:lat?

Yes. But no Linked Data browser I'm aware of applies owl:equivalentProperty assetions before rendering the data. (In fact, most do no reasoning at all.) I agree that, whatever our default display, it should include the appropriate mapping statements, either via an rdfs:seeAlso or similar link, or directly in the document.

Joel.

-hilmar

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:01 AM, joel sachs wrote:

...

All,

When representing observation records in RDF, there are advantages to using Dublin Core and Geo (http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/ wgs84_pos#) namespaces where possible. For example, if we use DC:date, and geo:lat, geo:long, instead of DwC:eventDate, DwC:lat, and DwC:long, then Linked Data browsers can automatically map the records, plot them on a timeline, etc.

My question is: What are the disadvantages to doing this? (For example, is this going to break someone's DwC validator?)

Thanks - Joel.

--

: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :

---

tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag