[tdwg-content] What RDF is (Was Re: Idea for Discussion, Differentiating between "type's" of identifiers)

"Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering at gbif.org
Thu Oct 7 19:11:12 CEST 2010

yes, we do need guidelines on how to use dwc with rdf. 
As Steve and others have experienced it is not obvious and there are multitude ways of doing so.

For xml we have created guidelines and some xml schemas to be very precise on how to use dwc with xml:

For text files ala csv we have created guidelines and added a new meta.xml file format with a matching xml schema to add semantics to the plain text files:

So I think we should do the same for rdf. At least we should create an rdf guideline documenting conventions, but potentially there could even be an rdf schema or some owl files associated with it.
The big question though is what are these conventions...


On Oct 7, 2010, at 19:01, Blum, Stan wrote:

> Thanks to Arlin for spotting the archiving problem!  And many thanks to
> Markus for fixing and restoring the missed emails!
> To return to the discussion of types of identifiers:
> I think there is broad support for keeping DwC concepts independent of
> technologies.  If that's accurate, then I think the next questions are:  do
> we need additional specification to make DwC more usable with RDF, Semantic
> Web or Linked Open Data and make everyone's lives easier?  Do names and
> identifiers in DwC need to be defined more narrowly, perhaps through
> something like in an applicability statement, to be used effectively in the
> LoD world? 
> -Stan
> On 10/7/10 2:07 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" <mdoering at gbif.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for spotting this, Stan.
>> It was a file permissions problem that Ive fixed now. Ironically all mails
>> since September 11th have not been archived, but I manually copied the missing
>> ones from my local mail client into the respective mailman archives and
>> rebuild the whole thing. Both content and tag should be fine now. The tdwg
>> announcement mailing list was never touched, so it has archived mails fine all
>> the time. Here are the archive links in case anyone wants to make sure all
>> mails are there:
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg/
>> Sorry for the problem.
>> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list