[tdwg-tag] Re: TDM Ontology

Gregor Hagedorn G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE
Fri May 4 13:20:32 CEST 2007

I still hope that the future model will be usable with xml-schema (w3c or 
whatever) as well as with OWL, I would vote for element names. The tagging 
approach means the the content model can not be elaborated in a way that allows 
validation (schema will not react to values, which the tags are).

I believe tagging is good if we want to make sure that the content model cannot 
be validated, so software will not make a contract about it. UBIF/SDD had 
purposely avoided element names and choose a tagging approach where we were 
looking for simple extensibility that is not expected to be validated (e.g. the 
different types of object label we need to support).

So, it just looks to me like the kind of high level categories you are 
discussing may call for category-specific content in the future, in this case 
element names are safer, whereever we go in the future.

I am not really into the discussion and would need some place to read up on 
what Infoitem, TaxonDataModel etc. is. (there is naught on the Wiki...)


Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
Königin-Luise-Str. 19           Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list