[tdwg-content] Heretics and illuminati, oh my! [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Peter DeVries]

The various elements like #Observation, #Image, #Identification within the
TaxonConcept species concepts are similar to puns.

This is designed to follow OWL2

Note that the Honey Bee http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species

<http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species>Has

    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Image"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Occurrence"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Individual"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Identification"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Taxonomy"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#NCBI_Taxonomy"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#OriginalDescription"/>

In part this was designed so that the species concept could be an owl class
while the occurrence of a Honey Bee is an instance of the class
txn:Occurrence.
It is tied to the species concept because an Honey Bee occurrence record is
also an instance of http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Occurrence

See

HTML
http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html
RDF   http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.rdf

Similarly now and identification of a Honey Bee  is both an instance of
txn:Identification and an instance of
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Identification

This SPARQL Query describe all the identification events for the Honey Bee.

describe ?s where { ?s a <
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Identification> }

<
http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/isparql/view/?query=describe%20%3Fs%20where%20{%20%3Fs%20a%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Flod.taxonconcept.org%2Fses%2Fz9oqP%23Identification%3E%20}%0A&endpoint=/sparql&resultview=browser&maxrows=50&view=1
 >

or via bit.ly  http://bit.ly/iDRIaY


- Pete

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Paul Murray <pmurray at anbg.gov.au> wrote:

>
> On 09/05/2011, at 2:07 PM, Kevin Richards wrote:
>
> > Paul
> >
> > I had the same thought (ie the x is of type dwc:Taxon, y is of type
> tc:Taxon, we know dwc:Taxon and tc:Taxon are equivalent, so we can
> reasonably compare x and y).
> > And this is built into standard semantic web reasoners - which is a
> bonus.
> > But this was debated (taking into account Bob Morris' issue) with respect
> to DwC and it was decided the benefits weren't significantly better than
> having a "dwc:isInCategory" sort of property that could then be "equivalent
> to" another class property and therefore giving you a similar advantage
> (admittedly not as good, but similar).
> > Do you think this is reasonable or are we just losing too much semantic
> web benefits by not specifying the domain constraint?
>
> A thing to watch out for is that in OWL DL, you cannot apply ordinary data
> and object properties to vocabulary objects (classes, predicates) - you can
> only apply annotation properties. If you apply an ordinary data property to
> a class, OWL DL treats this as what it calls "punning": it decides that
> there is a class named X and also a named individual named X, and that these
> have nothing to do with one another. The individual has properties, the
> class has members, and the annotation properties, well: whatever. Reasoners
> do not reason over annotation properties: indeed - that's the entire point.
> Attempting to put properties on properties and having classes being
> instances of classes results in things that are mathematically undecidable
> ("this statement cannot be proven to be true").
>
> (another reason is that is allows you to put dc:comments and labels on
> classes, and even if you declare those classes to be equivalent nevertheless
> the comment only applies to the particular thing you put it on)
>
> This all means that dwc:isInCategory, if you want to apply it to dwc:taxon
> or other classes, will never have any meaning that semweb "engines" can get
> at. The underlying thing is that dwc:isInCategory is actually a
> meta-syntactic construct: rather than using owl to define a vocabulary, you
> are effectively attempting to extend OWL itself.
>
> But ... maybe that's ok. Maybe what is attempting to be done here only ever
> needs to be understood by humans.
>
> Now ... if what you are trying to do is to define "Fish" as an owl class as
> well as as a Taxon object - that is do-able, even to the point of being able
> to get inheritance working, using reflexive properties.  At least ... I
> think it is. I should write a test case.
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
Bases
A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20110509/02e8aded/attachment.html