[tdwg-content] Relation of GNA to TDWG vocabularies

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at nescent.org
Sat Nov 13 19:58:49 CET 2010


I would add WebProtege [1] to Bob's email, and this tool is being  
developed towards better maturation on an on-going basis. Or more  
generally, the need for this tool is by no means specific to TDWG but  
is needed by a variety of large NIH (and NSF) funded projects, and so  
I think it is safe to say that even if TDWG did nothing to further  
development of such a tool, it is still going to came into place very  
soon.

The unique expertise that TDWG can contribute here is not how to build  
such a tool. Rather, it is the biodiversity domain expertise informing  
a biodiversity information ontology itself, and how to prioritize its  
development.

	-hilmar

[1] http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/WebProtege

On Nov 12, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Lee Belbin wrote:

> Well stated Stan, but I'd add a third-
>
> 3. Effective tool/s for viewing (graph, sub-graph, tables,  
> properties etc.),
> add/delete/modify with adaptable governance control (e.g., assigned  
> management
> to sub-graph domains), annotate (with full logging of who did what,  
> when and
> how...). This is in effect a collaboration tool.
>
> Until we have a tool (preferable to tools) that can be intuitive and  
> effective
> for building, managing and deploying /exporting vocabs or  
> ontologies, we will
> struggle with this socially and technically tough, but very  
> necessary task. The
> social issues are the hardest, but an effective collaboration tool  
> would be a
> big help.
>
> A tool that will be readily embraced  by #2 (the domain specialists)  
> seems far
> more important than the tools I've seen so far that are embraced by  
> #1 (e.g.
> Protégé).
>
> That we don't have a TDWG ontology is an increasing worry.
>
> Lee
>
> Lee Belbin
> Geospatial Team Leader
> Atlas of Living Australia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Blum, Stan
> Sent: Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:43 AM
> To: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Relation of GNA to TDWG vocabularies
>
> Progress on the TDWG ontology seems to require:
>
> 1) one or more people with good sense of what can be done with  
> ontologies, both
> in the near-term and long-term; and
> 2) one or more people who understand the way information is  
> partitioned in this
> domain and how it could fit together.
>
> I think we have a lot of #2, but not many of #1.
>
> FYI, we have seed money to bring these categories together.
>
> -Stan
>
>
> On 11/12/10 2:25 PM, "Bob Morris" <morris.bob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Richard Pyle
>> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] the current status of the TDWG-Ontology efforts.  The Google
>>> Code website seems a bit anemic,
>>
>> Ooh, I love that line.  I think I'll put it in the script of my next
>> animation, to be titled: "Alpha and Beta discuss the current status  
>> of
>> of the TDWG-Ontology efforts"
>>
>> Thanks for correcting the URL.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> Robert A. Morris
>> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science UMASS-Boston
>> 100 Morrissey Blvd
>> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>> Associate, Harvard University Herbaria
>> email: morris.bob at gmail.com
>> web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
>> web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
>> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>> phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
===========================================================





More information about the tdwg-content mailing list