[Tdwg-tag] Object Model / Ontology Management - how we kick it off.
roger at tdwg.org
Thu Feb 23 16:23:09 CET 2006
Continuing on from my last message the way the CIDOC modeling good and
is presented is not unlike the way the DublinCore work is carried out -
and the DC terms are also specified in RDF using a PURL!
Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> I think I agree with most of your points (also from previous
> Concerning the representation independent object model, I would
> suggest the same approach taken by CIDOC CRM:
> It's not easy to find such clear and well documented modelling work.
> Although at a first glance it could fall into the "ontology-at-the-
> level-of-laws-of-physics" category, I won't make that judgment
> because CIDOC's scope is definitely broader than ours.
> Anyway, what I'm suggesting is to use the same approach and the same
> kind of documentation. Using and extending CIDOC is a completely
> different thing - probably interesting (I think), but something that
> could even be evaluated and addressed at another stage.
> On 22 Feb 2006 at 15:50, Roger Hyam wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> It is generally agreed that we need an representation independent
>> object model or ontology of some kind. I would like to put together a
>> list of the things that need to be agreed or investigated in order to
>> do this.
>> Firstly the things I believe we can all agree on (stop me if I am
>> * It should be representation independent (i.e. we should be able to
>> move it between 'languages' UML, OWL, BNF etc).
>> * It should be dynamic (i.e. capable of evolving through time).
>> * It should be polymorphic. This is a result of it being dynamic. There
>> will, at a minimum, be multiple version of any one part of the model
>> when new version are introduced.
>> * It should NOT attempt to be omniscient i.e. it will not cover
>> everything in our domain, only the parts that need to be
>> * It will be managed in a distributed fashion. Different teams will
>> take responsibility for different parts of it.
>> My first Question is:
>> Does the centralization of the ontology need to go beyond a small
>> shared vocabulary of terms or base classes?
>> I envisage this ontology containing things like Collection, Specimen,
>> TaxonConcept, TaxonName but not defining the detailed structure of
>> these objects. It would contain a maximum of a few 10's of objects
>> and properties. TDWG subgroups would be responsible for building
>> ontologies that extend these base objects but that generally didn't
>> refer to each other - only to the core. If this is true then I think
>> the definition of the top level object falls within the remit of the
>> TAG ( in consultation with others).
>> If this is not a valid way forward what are the alternatives?
>> Are their questions we should ask before this one?
>> Once again I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
> Tdwg-tag mailing list
> Tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-tag