tdwg at ACHAPMAN.ORG
Fri Nov 25 04:15:53 CET 2005
This is a neat solution and may well work. I like it!
It is somewhat akin to the "Relation" element in Dublin Core but which has generally not been implemented with a controlled vocabulary as was recommended at the Canberra meeting of Dublin Core in about 1996 or 1997.
It was implemented in the Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) as Australian Standard AS5044 with a controlled vocabulary. The vocabulary is not what we would need, but gives a parallel example
>>>From Roderic Page <r.page at BIO.GLA.AC.UK> on 25 Nov 2005:
> These relationships would be specified in the metadata attached to the
> GUIDs, not the GUIDs themselves (they are simply unique identifiers).
> For example, if we think of you tax number/Social Security
> Number/National Insurance Number (insert whatever identifier your
> government attaches to you here), then you could have two GUIDs such as
> JE 5679434A
> JH 5679434B
> The metadata for JE 5679434A could contain a statement that the
> individuals are related, e.g. something like
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="JE 5679434A">
> <isMarriedTo rdf:resource ="JH 5679434B" />
> In other words, the person identifed by "JE 5679434A" is married to the
> person identified by "JH 5679434B".
> One can develop ontologies that specify these relationships, and enable
> us to deduce other facts. For example, if X is married to Y, then Y is
> married to X, but if Z is a child of Y, Y is the parent of Z, and so
> on. What is nice is that you wouldn't have to explicitly state that Y
> is the parent of Z in the metadata Y, it can be inferred from the
> relationship Z is a child of Y.
> I use RDF here because these are the kind of things it handles nicely.
> All (!) you'd need is a consistent vocabulary to describe the
> relationships. RDF already has some basic ones ("sameAs",
> "subPropertyOf", etc.). In the examples you provide, I guess you'd want
> "part of", "extracted from", "hosted by", "parent of", "mother of",
> Does this help?
> On 25 Nov 2005, at 11:18, Arthur Chapman wrote:
> > Below I have placed two scenarios that show some of the
> > cross-discipline problems I believe we face with GUIDs. They don't
> > provide the answers, alas!
> > It would appear to me that each of these separate entities need a
> > GUID; but that each needs to show some relationship (nearly a
> > genealogy or pedigree line) - child of (i.e. derived from); brother
> > (duplicate collection); sister of (wet collection); part of (genetic
> > study) etc. Can these be built into a GUID?
> > If we just look at the simplest problem, where a herbarium makes a
> > collection and sends out duplicates to other herbaria. More often
> > than not, the duplicates are distributed prior to receiving a
> > catalogue number in the originating ionstitution. We can only thus
> > identify duplicates using collector name and number, but these are
> > always unique, and not all collectors use numbers. - We can't use the
> > lat/long coordinates as these are often put on after distribution and
> > are often different (one collection I looked at in 5 different
> > herbaria was given 4 different lat/longs). The resolution of many of
> > these duplicates will need to be a human problem - possibly helped by
> > parsing routines similar those being developed for location
> > information in the BioGeomancer project, and possibly some artificial
> > intelligence (to sort out collector's names used in different ways,
> > etc. - initials first/surname first, etc.).
> > I wish I could supply the answers!
> > These scenarios don't show up all that well in text, I have also
> > attached a word document.
> > ---------------------
> > PLANT
> > 1. Collector Makes collection
> > a. Provides collector number (not always Unique) <Fred 123>
> > i. Submits collection to Herbarium
> > 1. Herbarium supplies collection number <Index
> Herbarium-CANB12345> >
> > 2. and a name <TCS-123454>
> > a. Herbarium distributes collections to other herbaria
> > i. New herbaria supply collection numbers <IH-NY65432;
> > IH-MO34562; IH-K98765>
=== message truncated ==
More information about the tdwg-tag