Roger,
One slight extension/modification I would like to see
is that I would really like to see the polymorphism more like Java interface
implementation than Java class extension (i.e. “multiple inheritance”
may be a good thing if suitably controlled, e.g. by namespaces). My point
here is that I want it to be easy for our data providers to make use of all
relevant polymorphisms (extensions) when serving their data. Darwin Core
is my model here. If we develop a range of extension vocabularies to
augment Darwin Core in describing a taxon occurrence, providers should be able
to serve data including any subset of those vocabularies.
This may be so obvious as not to need saying, but I wanted
to be sure it was captured.
By the way, I thoroughly agree with your other points
and believe that we should focus on the small shared vocabulary you
describe. If we define these anchor points, subgroups can address
everything that we need to flesh out these classes for use in applications
(including defining properties that relate their objects to objects of other
classes).
Thanks,
Donald
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org)
Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100
Tel: +45-35321483
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On
Behalf Of Roger Hyam
Sent: 22 February 2006 16:50
To: Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org
Subject: [Tdwg-tag] Object Model /
Ontology Management - how we kick it off.
Hi All,
It is generally agreed that we need an representation independent object model
or ontology of some kind. I would like to put together a list of the things
that need to be agreed or investigated in order to do this.
Firstly the things I believe we can all agree on (stop me if I am wrong).
My first Question is:
Does the centralization of the ontology need
to go beyond a small shared vocabulary of terms or base classes?
I envisage this ontology containing things like Collection, Specimen,
TaxonConcept, TaxonName but not defining the detailed structure of these
objects. It would contain a maximum of a few 10's of objects and properties.
TDWG subgroups would be responsible for building ontologies that extend these
base objects but that generally didn't refer to each other - only to the core.
If this is true then I think the definition of the top level object falls
within the remit of the TAG ( in consultation with others).
If this is not a valid way forward what are the alternatives?
Are their questions we should ask before this one?
Once again I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
Roger
--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
http://www.tdwg.org
roger@tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------