[tdwg-tapir] Darwin & RDF
John R. WIECZOREK
tuco at berkeley.edu
Thu Apr 19 03:22:36 CEST 2007
Agreed. Now is the right time for this.
2007/4/18, Dave Vieglais <vieglais at ku.edu>:
> Hi Renato,
> I would favor the use of fragment identifiers for the predicates as
> it is consistent with their intended use. I expect the difficulty
> associated with reconfiguration now will be much less than the
> problems encountered later if this change is not made.
> Dave V.
> On Apr 19, 2007, at 08:32, Renato De Giovanni wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > This is clearly a crosscutting issue and I thought about using the
> > TAPIR mailing list for the following reasons:
> > 1) The main people involved with DarwinCore are subscribed here;
> > 2) This issue raised from a TAPIR use case;
> > 3) It can affect all existing TAPIR/DarwinCore providers, as well as
> > all output models based on DarwinCore.
> > As you know, there was a recent release of TapirLink which includes
> > an LSID authority that serves an RDF representation of DarwinCore by
> > default.
> > Everything seems to be working fine, but when I parse the resulting
> > RDF in the W3C validator, I see that the predicates are being
> > displayed as:
> > http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcoreGenus
> > While in the semantic world the "expected" representation would be
> > something like:
> > http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcore#Genus
> > Apparently it seems just a cosmetic thing, but after some quick
> > research this "unexpected representation" can cause problems
> > depending on usage and tools: for instance, if it's necessary to
> > perform RDF/XML round-tripping, then semantic web tools may not work
> > if there's no clear separation between the namespace URI and local
> > names, which is normally done by using the fragment identifier.
> > If you're interested, you can find a similar discussion here:
> > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16476.html
> > Which has this interesting follow-up:
> > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16480.html
> > Since the new DarwinCore version and its extensions are not yet a
> > TDWG standard and may even be subject to other changes, I'm proposing
> > to add the fragment identifier to all Darwin namespaces. Better to do
> > this as soon as possible if we're going to need this in the future.
> > Please let me know if you have any comments, ideas or concerns...
> > It may be the case that this change will affect other things (like
> > the new GBIF REST service) although probably not as much as
> > TAPIR/DarwinCore providers which will need to re-map their databases.
> > Best Regards,
> > --
> > Renato
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-tapir mailing list
> > tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-tag