This is great stuff.
The vocabulary URIs are temporary but we are working on a central system for resolvable ones just now. We need a space for these as well as schemaLocations and various other things.
The isBasionymOf property is an interesting one. This does not exist in the current vocabulary because it is based on the schema version of TCS. The thinking in TCS went that a name that is a basionym does not 'know' that it is a basionym and therefore it would be wrong to model this as a property of the object. There are many places where this might be an issue. Does a specimen know that it is the type of a name? Without the name it isn't a type.
If you called an LSID for a specimen would you expect to be told that the specimen was the type of a name? If we use Concise Bounded Descriptions ( http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html) then we won't know unless there is a triple with a subject of the specimen and an object of the name (i.e. we have an isTypeSpecimenOf property or similar). But logically where does this stop? We can't add reciprocal properties to the object definition for everything that anyone may say of it. If I define a taxon with a list of specimens I wouldn't expect all the specimens to have reciprocal includedInTaxonConcept links back to my object. It would be impossible in an open system where some one else may own the record.
I am thinking aloud here but we have to be very careful in adding things to vocabularies - even when they seem really useful. Ultimately if a client wants to know everything about a object that a data source has it will have to ask the "Give me all the things that refer to X" question. Either that or we have to guarantee that all links are always reciprocal - which we can't.
On the other hand things that are in people's data bases that are easy to pass should perhaps be represented in an ontology - if they are useful.
Well done for another LSID authority Kevin.
All the best,
Roger
Kevin Richards wrote:
Thanks for those comments Rod. As you have seen this is an initial attempt.
The syntax
<TaxonNames:hasBasionym> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860" /> </TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
strikes me as odd.
This is due to an accidental omission of the RDF entity type of the basionym object. Will fix this.
I also suggest that urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names:148860 has a complementary tag such as
<TaxonNames:isBasionymOf rdf:resource ="urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:Names: 213649" />
Godd idea. The fields are based on the initial implementation of TCS-RDF that Roger completed, and as he said, it is not a complete schema at this stage. BTW the reverse RDF pointers can be viewed using launchpad by going into the launchpad settings and turning on 'Show back links'.
The attribute TaxonNames:nomenclaturalCode="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/ NomenclaturalCode/#botanical" of the tag TaxonNames:TaxonName is problematic. Firstly, I don't know why this is an attribute rather
than
just another tag,
Due to my lack of understanding of RDF and when to use attributes as opposed to tags - I was blindly following an example.
and the URI http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/NomenclaturalCode/#botanical returns a 404. If this is just a made up URI then this is bad --
EVERY
URI in an RDF document must be real -- unlike XML schema where any
old
rubbish can be used.
Also due to the prototyping stage of this 'project'. Will be fixed by online TDWG ontologies at some stage I assume?
<TaxonNames:publishedIn><i>Syll. fung.</i> (Abellini)<b>1</b>: 148 (1882) (1882)</TaxonNames:publishedIn> has formatting information (the <i></i> and <b></b> tags). I think
this
is in principle a bad thing(TM)
We debated this a little and decided to leave the field text the same as has been returned by other services of IndexFungorum. But you have a good point and it is something we will need to discuss further in future.
Kevin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research.
Landcare Research http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger@tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------