[tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content recommendations to comments

Ramona Walls rlwalls2008 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 5 19:01:18 CET 2015

As far as I know, iao:example of usage also allows both literals and URLs
as the range. However, I fail to see a serious problem with that, and to
me, the benefits of re-using existing properties far outway the benefits I
could see from having a separate set of properties for literals. Also, I
don't know anyone who reasons over annotations properties, although I am
sure there are those who do.

In response to Paul Morris's comment, simply using iao:example of usage
does not import all of IAO, and therefore does not include any of the
"baggage" of using IAO.


Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D.
Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona
Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona
Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>

> Like others, I like the idea in principle, but I’m not well-versed in the
> implications of alternate approaches to implementation to weigh in on that.
> Whatever technical solution is adopted, I would like to hope that it
> supports the representation of more than a single example; as sometimes it
> is useful  to show alternate forms of acceptable content.
> Aloha,
> Rich
> *From:* tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:
> tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *John Wieczorek
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:22 AM
> *To:* Paul J. Morris
> *Cc:* TDWG Content Mailing List; Ramona Walls
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Darwin Core Proposal - term content
> recommendations to comments
> Does anyone have similar concerns about iao:example?
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole at morris.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500
> Bob Morris <morris.bob at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But  skos:note and its subproperties (including skos:example) can take
> > literals or references [1].  To me, that weighs   more than the
> > baggage of minting two new terms.
> Also, SKOS, unless care is taken to import the Owl-DL version, brings
> you into Owl-Full, with undesirable consequences for those who wish to
> do reasoning.  In early versions of dwcFP, we did include SKOS terms,
> but removed them because of the consequences for reasoning.
> SKOS has some nice terms, reuse is a nice idea, but it comes with
> significant knowledge engineering consequences.
> -Paul
> --
> Paul J. Morris
> Biodiversity Informatics Manager
> Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
> mole at morris.net  AA3SD  PGP public key available
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150205/e2a811f3/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list