m.doering at mac.com
Tue Aug 24 21:26:25 CEST 2010
if someone wants to start such a vocabulary by providing a first draft for relationship types Id be glad to add it to the recommended GBIF vocabularies:
A simple list of term + definition would be enough.
Maybe we can start to compile such a list within this thread?
PS: most of those vocabularies are derived from http://vocabularies.gbif.org/vocabularies
We wanted a bit more stability though and curate rs.gbif.org in svn - but we are always open for moderated changes or additions.
PPS: the vocabularies hosted are in xml but we plan to expose them also as rdf at some point with the same URIs as listed.
(probably only the ones using the gbif domain as we dont control the other domains)
On Aug 24, 2010, at 19:01, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> I think it is extremely useful to take the
>> first step by creating vocabularies within disciplines that make sense
>> within that discipline.
> Me too, but I said "group," not "discipline." If each domain
> (discipline) has its own controlled vocabulary, the union of these is
> indeed was Bob was looking for, I think. But if CAS has one vocabulary
> for its specimen date and AMNH has another, I don't call that very
> controlled. A useful first step, though.
>> This approach allows for buy-in at a natural level
>> of organization and understanding (not to mention activity), allows
>> evolution, and can be resolved at the level of ontologies
>> that synonymize between vocabularies when necessary.
> But I wonder if it's better to have each of those 50 groups
> (organizations) come up with its own vocabulary, then reconcile them,
> or instead have a meta-group like, oh, TDWG or GBIF, decide on one
> that makes sense.
> Web Applications Developer
> Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics
> California Academy of Sciences
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-content