[tdwg-content] Schema-last and crazy: correlated? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
jsachs at csee.umbc.edu
Wed Feb 23 23:05:22 CET 2011
Is that Organism#hasIdentification URI from the TDWG ontology? I thought
the TDWG ontology was de facto deprecated. Am I wrong about that?
Not only does
not dereference, but it doesn't even generate real hits via Google. (Even
http://tdwg.org/voc is broken.)
My thoughts about hasIdentification are in the context of representing
Darwin Core as rdf. I think it's important that we continue to allow (and
encourage) spreadsheet represntations of DwC, and that these map naturally
to de-normalized rdf.
I agree that it makes sense, as you suggest, to define hasIdentification
as a property without domain constraints, and then introduce subProperties
pictureHasIdentification, etc., each with the appropriate domain. Then,
applications that know what they're doing can apply the correct property.
You wrote: "a person who uses that predicate to describe a
painting is misusing the vocabulary and deserves what they get."
The problem is that it's not just the person who misuses a vocabulary that
gets a mess of incorrect inferences. We all do.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Paul Murray wrote:
> 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