Hi Roger
TAG list url is here with the archive:
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
thanks, I registered.
I need help to understand rdf. Whereas xml schema has a conceptual mapping to database or oo-programming design, rdf seem to have none, I lack anything I can relate it too. I still have not seen any software to help me understand what you produced.
RDF is no more complex than xml schema. The RDFS way of doing things is far more object orientated than schema. It forces you to have classes and properties whereas arbitrary XML document structures can be ambiguous as to whether they are defining objects or properties of objects so - I don't see your reasoning.
I never encountered atomizing every statement into subject-predicate-object in OO design...
"to whether they are defining objects or properties of objects so": xml schema is about classes, not objects (instances). Can you give an example what you find confusing in xml schema, I don't see it.
Of course you do have the strange animal of mixed content in xml schema, but ignoring this (none of the TDWG standard used it) you have classes and each class has a type. The type can be simple or complex, just like in OO languages.
I did already tried the primer but it did not help me, it seemed to talk of use cases rather in Artificial intelligence that are hard for me to follow.
The RDF primer is a good place to start reading:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
It is less than 100 printed pages so can probably be read in an evening and understood in several evenings!
There is a tutorial here:
http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asp
and loads of books and things
The key to understanding it I found was that it is about describing resources not validating documents. When using XML Schema we are trying to create a set of rules to validate a document that describes the resource. We are effectively designing forms. With RDF we are describing the attributes of the resource that we want to use to describe it. Thus the two things are not mutually exclusive - which I hoped to demonstrate with my code.
That may be a good pointer to the problems I have. Because I do not think we are describing resources. In my mind we are sharing scientific data. I want the data, not the resources.
That should be discussed in common, but I already had 0 time the last three days after starting this reply, and plenty of messages have come in....
-------------
- Secondarily, on cursory reading I saw that you introduced the term
"GenusEpithet". This does not exist in the codes and is illogical, see def. below obtained by Google:
An epithet (Greek and Latin epitheton; literally meaning 'imposed' ) is a descriptive word or lapidary phrase, often metaphoric, that is essentially a reduced or condensed appositive. Epithets are sometimes attached to a person's name, as what might be described as a glorified nickname. Not every adjective is an epithet, even worn clichés. An epithet is linked to its noun by long- established usage and some are not otherwise employed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet
You are correct and I agree with you in my post as I said that this is not normal English usage.
If I call the property 'genus' or 'genusName' then people would be tempted to use it when they are describing a TaxonName of rank genus. This would be wrong as a taxon name of rank genus is a uninomial (monomial) and the 'uninomial' property should be used.
The property 'genusEpithet' represents the first particle of a binomial or trinomial name (which happens to consist of the word used as the genus name). I am open to suggestions for other names but I guess that genusEpithet is better than firstParticleOfBinomialTrinomialName. genusPart? genus...? Incidentally under ICBN there is a weird rule that this word is not actually the genus. If there were homonymic generic names (two identical) then the species 'belong' to earlier homonym even if the author of the species intended them to be in the later homonym. This makes sense but it took me a long time to get it.
To me it is not about English usage, but about logic. English in general uses words in a logical way, so do the Nomenclatural Codes. An "Epithet" can never be the first particle (as you describe), because it means "added to something in front of it". It is like calling the front page a TitleAppendix because it is secondary material to main content.
I find simple "Genus" best - stick with the codes, but I see your reasoning. Perhaps someone finds something better than GenusPart or GenusNameParticle (I dont), but I would go for them.
I never found the rule weird, by the way, it is perfectly logical given the code considers a "name" the name-string, without the authors and publication details logically required in the case of homonyms. It basically safeguards against unnecessary name changes.
EDI booking is all ok. Many thanks!
Gregor
---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203