[Tdwg-tag] Object Model / Ontology Management - how we kick it off.

[Roger Hyam]

Thanks for that Donald. I am glad you agree on the core vocabulary.

The use of the term 'vocabulary' is where I think we can try and address 
the other point you raise regarding interfaces vs extensions. It leads 
neatly into my next question to the list that I'll pop in another thread.

Donald Hobern wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
>  
>
> One slight extension/modification I would like to see is that I would 
> really like to see the polymorphism more like Java interface 
> implementation than Java class extension (i.e. "multiple inheritance" 
> may be a good thing if suitably controlled, e.g. by namespaces).  My 
> point here is that I want it to be easy for our data providers to make 
> use of all relevant polymorphisms (extensions) when serving their 
> data.  Darwin Core is my model here.  If we develop a range of 
> extension vocabularies to augment Darwin Core in describing a taxon 
> occurrence, providers should be able to serve data including any 
> subset of those vocabularies.
>
>  
>
> This may be so obvious as not to need saying, but I wanted to be sure 
> it was captured.
>
>  
>
> By the way, I thoroughly agree with your other points and believe that 
> we should focus on the small shared vocabulary you describe.  If we 
> define these anchor points, subgroups can address everything that we 
> need to flesh out these classes for use in applications (including 
> defining properties that relate their objects to objects of other 
> classes).
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
> Donald
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org <mailto:dhobern at gbif.org>)
> Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org 
> [mailto:Tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Roger Hyam
> *Sent:* 22 February 2006 16:50
> *To:* Tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> *Subject:* [Tdwg-tag] Object Model / Ontology Management - how we kick 
> it off.
>
>  
>
> 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 wrong).
>
>    1. It should be representation independent (i.e. we should be able
>       to move it between 'languages' UML, OWL, BNF etc).
>    2. It should be dynamic (i.e. capable of evolving through time).
>    3. 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.
>    4. It should NOT attempt to be omniscient i.e. it will not cover
>       everything in our domain, only the parts that need to be
>       communicated.
>    5. 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.
>
> Roger
>
>
> -- 
>  
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  roger at tdwg.org <mailto:roger at tdwg.org>
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------


-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger at tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20060223/cebdd46e/attachment.html