[tdwg-content] Schema-last and crazy: correlated? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Paul Murray pmurray at anbg.gov.au
Tue Feb 22 03:53:28 CET 2011

On 20/02/2011, at 1:24 PM, joel sachs wrote:

> I'm currently arguing  with  someone off-list about what I think is my 
> minimal example, that I hope that everyone can agree on. It's about domain 
> constraints on "hasIdentification". If I say
> "http://fu.bar hasIdentifcation rabbit",
> should we, as a community, interpret that to mean that http://fu.bar is an 
> individulOrganism (as opposed to, say, a picture)? Must I, as a guy who 
> likes to make assertions, be told either

been a while since I chimed in on this list.

hasIdentification has an RDF namespace. If the full name of the predicate is actually


Then it's probably quite reasonable to make the type assumption. If you want to make it more general, then define a more general predicate


and type (IdentifiableThing), and make subclass/subproperty assertions. If the namespace/ontoogy that you are importing makes it clear that we are talking about organisms, then a person who uses that predicate to describe a painting is misusing the vocabulary and deserves what they get.


If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list