Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1
A friend writes:
Unable to find a vocabulary that was satisfactory for my needs, I've put together a simple vocabulary for biological taxonomy. The idea is to make it powerful enough to cover 80% of use cases, but still simple for most non-expert biologists to use.
Namespace and spec is:
You can read his full post, and subsequent discussion, at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/thread.html#msg45
(aka http://tinyurl.com/575w25)
(Also posted to ttaxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu)
What was his concerns with the various schemas already available? TDWG schemas , LSID vocabs, etc?
If I understand it correctly, here is some rdf for his simple example using the LSID vocabs RDF (http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/TAG/LsidVocs) :
<rdf:RDF xmlns:tn="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#" xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf ="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/%22%3E
<foaf:Person rdf:about="http://tobyinkster.co.uk/~tobyink/%22%3E foaf:nameToby Inkster</foaf:name> tn:nameCompleteAmanita abrupta</tn:nameComplete> </foaf:Person> </rdf:RDF> Am I missing something?
Also, his lack of interest in using Unique Identifiers is disconcerting.
Kevin
Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk 28/05/2008 8:40 a.m. >>>
A friend writes:
Unable to find a vocabulary that was satisfactory for my needs, I've put together a simple vocabulary for biological taxonomy. The idea is to make it powerful enough to cover 80% of use cases, but still simple for most non-expert biologists to use.
Namespace and spec is:
You can read his full post, and subsequent discussion, at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008May/thread.html#msg45
(aka http://tinyurl.com/575w25)
(Also posted to ttaxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu)
participants (2)
-
Andy Mabbett -
Kevin Richards