[tdwg-tag] RE: tdwg-tag Digest, Vol 22, Issue 5

[Gregor Hagedorn]

> Gregor's wrote:
> "That may be an excellent idea indeed. But then we should call it a
> "tag" and not "category" or "class", and make clear that adding
> multiple tags will remain uninterpretable - other than as you
> indicated."

> Eamonn wrote:
> I don't really mind what we call our terms but if they are coming from a
> non-hierarchical, controlled vocabulary (a class?)
> (http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems.rdf)  don't we leave open the
> possibility that these may eventually be arranged into an OWL ontology?

I did not mean that, I meant that if *two* tags are added, that the
relation of these tags should not be interpreted other than indicated
by you. If two terms are added, one provider may intend a union,
another an intersection, another a specification of the first by the
second. I think we should make a recommendation that SPM is not meant
to allow this interpretation detail.

What you say is that one could introduce a new term "ecological
genetics" and then define it to be the intersection of ecology and
genetics, using OWL statements. I believe you can not define in OWL
how the repeated occurrence of a single attribute "Tag" with two
values shall be interpreted semantically, right?

Gregor