Thoughts
Bob Morris
morris.bob at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 13 09:12:56 CET 2006
OK. I understand. Now I need to know on which Wiki people are developing
discussion of the RDF tools. I'm aware only of ontology development tools,
and I need to educate myself about where are the tools and frameworks for
building applications and for databinding.
On 2/13/06, Donald Hobern <dhobern at gbif.org> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> I'm sorry that the conclusions of the meeting still seem so unclear. I'll
> try to summarise a few points of importance. Please come back with your
> thoughts/exasperation on any or all of these.
>
>
>
> 1. The general conclusion of the meeting was that an RDF-based model
> was desirable for content as well as description (recognising that in most
> of our existing standards the distinction is blurred). However we expect to
> use the next few months to clarify what will work for our needs and I can
> still foresee several possible variant solutions if we are not satisfied
> with a full RDF-based approach (e.g. RDF Dublin Core for metadata
> and tighter formalization of how we provide the rest of the information as
> data, including use of versions; or, metadata containing a URL to retrieve
> our content data from a DiGIR/BioCASe/TAPIR provider etc.; or, working with
> IBM to introduce a modification to the LSID specification; etc.).
> 2. We recognised that a recast of TDWG standards into an RDF-based
> representation was not trivial, but a change at least somewhat like this
> (from large document-based models to reusable data objects) is in any case
> needed for many other reasons (better re-use, less churn from versioning;
> simpler extensibility, etc.).
> 3. The GUID workshop is not a totally isolated activity. The new
> TDWG Architecture Group (TAG) will be meeting separately to consider how to
> standardise our data modeling and integrate better with other standards
> (such as WFS and RDF). It would be a major step forward for us to model our
> standards in a framework that makes our OO-model explicit (rather than
> relying on unstated implications of structure) and where it is also easy for
> us to extend it with additional concepts/properties as required. I hope
> that we can agree our actual approach through the TAG discussions.
> <personalAside>For what it's worth, my own vision up to now had been for
> something like UML modeling followed by simultaneous generation of OWL-Lite
> and XML Schema definitions for each data class (the XML Schema
> representation being regarded as a convenience tool for generating a
> document that – I hope – would perfectly correspond to the more semantically
> clear OWL-Lite document). The advantage of leap-frogging RDF to some form
> of OWL is that we could have the semantic foundation to our models but still
> retain something that has a familiar structure.</personalAside>
> 4. It is important to note that the suggested prototype activities
> are prefixed, "The *potential* prototypes…". Right now I would
> expect several of these only to test out the assignment of LSIDs to data
> objects and their use for retrieving the objects independently of full LSID
> resolution or RDF mapping. I believe that the first real LSID-resolver test
> is likely to be with Darwin Core (which is just about RDF-ready
> immediately). We want to use the next few months to play around with LSIDs
> in whatever areas we can. Part of the purpose is to allow us to understand
> what software we need to develop before trying it on a larger scale. It
> will be part of my job to find ways to get such software developed.
>
>
>
> By the way, the GUID wiki is open for comments. You can add pages to the
> wiki, or use the comments link at the bottom of the page (these are
> WikkaWakka comments that are shown like a set of footnotes). As an
> alternative I have added a new page for comments on this report:
>
>
>
> http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID1ReportComments
>
>
>
> Thanks as ever for your input,
>
>
>
> Donald
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern (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:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:
> TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Bob Morris
> *Sent:* 13 February 2006 05:09
> *To:* TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts
>
>
>
> I'm quite confused from the meeting reports whether there was some
> argument accepted that LSID metadata in RDF should represent the \content/
> of the current concerns of TDWG, including TCS, DC, ABCD, SDD, and the
> impending new groups, or merely \describe/ the databases against which
> answers are rendered in those content standards. For example, if a taxon
> concept is given an LSID, is the metadata returned expected to be a
> replacement for the current XML constrained by TCS? RDF certainly can
> encode a taxon concept and address the relations it encodes, but I'm unaware
> of applications of LSID metadata of objects in a database where the datum is
> encoded, though in many cases RDF could rationally make a claim to do so. I
> agree with Sally:Where's the robust, widely accepted killer app?
>
> I hate long email posts, and the present rules of the GUID wiki don't yet
> permit comment, so I have posted something on the SDD Wiki. I'll move it
> when the GUID wiki is open.
> http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/RDFConsideredHarmful
>
> Depending on the resolutiuon to my cofusion expressed in the first
> paragraph, I am somewhere been vigorously opposed and neutral on RDF, for
> reasons in the above linked RDFConsideredHarmful.
>
> I'm also amazed that a whole crew of volunteers seem to be persuaded (or
> appointed) to drop everything they are doing and take on what may or may not
> be a substantial piece of software engineering to in the next three months.
> Either there were a lot of persuasive arguments that I couldn't see in what
> I've been through so far in the report, or somewhere there is sitting an
> LSID resolver package that just needs a little configuration. mod_LSID??? I
> guess I'll learn which from Greg Riccardi. I sure hope it's the latter.
>
> Bob
>
> On 2/12/06, *Roderic Page* <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> For my take on McCool's articles see
> http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/rob-mccool-on-rethinking-semantic-
> web.html
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
> On 11 Feb 2006, at 20:44, Bob Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > Rethinking the semantic Web. Part I
> > McCool, R.;
> > Internet Computing, IEEE
> > Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005 Page(s):88, 86 - 87
> > Abstract:
> >
> > The semantic Web is a compelling vision, in which the World Wide Web
> > will include a notion of meaning in data and services. Intelligent
> > agents will exchange information and rules for how to interact with
> > that information, with or without human intervention; appointments
> > will be automatically scheduled; and automated agents will select and
> > invoke services. Information will be easy to find without depending
> > solely on keywords. In part one of this column, the author propose
> > several reasons that this vision hasn't yet been adopted despite
> > substantial research funding in the US and European Union (EU). These
> > reasons will provide the foundation for a new approach, which propose
> > in part two.
> >
> > McCool is one of the architects of a number of RDF and RDF related
> > systems. This doesn't bear very much on LSID vs. something else, but
> > it does argue that RDF is burdened by its weight and hasn't achieved
> > certain of its aims. A question arises about whether this has
> > implications for other applications that have ontological overtones,
> > including many of TDWGs.
> >
> > The second columm is in the January issue of the same journal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Sally Hinchcliffe < S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org> wrote:Hi Rod,
> >> Your comment facility is down or I would have added this to the blog
> >> ...
> >> I think that most of the talk re serving XML from LSIDs was by way of
> >> an upgrade path rather than as a final goal. As you say (rightly or
> >> wrongly) the community has put a lot of effort into XML schemas and
> >> it worried me (and others) that tying LSIDs to RDF might mean that
> >> the LSID baby got thrown out with the RDF bathwater as the community
> >> rejected it wholesale. But I was persuaded this wouldn't happen and
> >> now I face some scepticism here at Kew about the benefits of RDF so a
> >> killer app would be good...
> >>
> >> On the meeting itself, yes it was frustrating (and interesting and
> >> useful as well) and it struck me on my return that we might have got
> >> further had we had some professional (and neutral) facilitators - not
> >> to say that the chairs didn't do a good job getting us all to a
> >> decision in the end, but that we are all (me included) so parti pris
> >> and bound up in the subject that herding cats didn't even come close
> >> ... For the next meeting the decisions will be harder and more
> >> concrete and there will be a lot to decide. It might help having
> >> people who know how to facilitate useful debate and close off some of
> >> the blind alleys and circular pathways we have a tendency to wander
> >> into
> >> Sally
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > For those at the workshop, it was great to meet you and to discuss
> >> > GUIDs. I've posted a personal view on proceedings on one of my
> >> blogs:
> >> > http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2006/02/globally-unique-identifiers.html
> >> .
> >> > Comments are welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Rod
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> > ----------------------------------------
> >> > Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> >> > Editor, Systematic Biology
> >> > DEEB, IBLS
> >> > Graham Kerr Building
> >> > University of Glasgow
> >> > Glasgow G12 8QP
> >> > United Kingdom
> >> >
> >> > Phone:+44 141 330 4778
> >> > Fax:+44 141 330 2792
> >> > email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> >> > web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> >> > reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
> >> >
> >> > Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> >> > Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
> >> > Search for taxon names at
> >> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/>
> >> > Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org
> >>
> >> *** Sally Hinchcliffe
> >> *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
> >> *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
> >> *** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> Editor, Systematic Biology
> DEEB, IBLS
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QP
> United Kingdom
>
> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>
> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
> Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/<http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/%7Erpage/portal/>
> Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20060213/3a9de6de/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list