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/RDFConsideredHarmfulFor 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@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@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@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