[tdwg-tag] RE: tdwg-tag Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1

Döring, Markus m.doering at BGBM.org
Wed Oct 10 14:55:34 CEST 2007

I would vote for simply "tag" or "subject" as the SPM syntax is hidden from humans anyway.

Personally I would chose OWL as the document format this tag points to, but it seems we are better off to leave this decision to the provider or developers of the data exchange network. Lets wait and see what proves better. It would be good though if SPM provides already a basic vocabulary to get started with.

I very much like Gregors idea of providing some distinct InfoItem class. I would maybe just add another tagged class which uses controlled terms as values instead of free text:

a) tagged free text
b) tagged controlled term incl term/vocabulary source
c) tagged organism interaction
d) (tagged?) distribution data 

These are the most prominent use cases and we would not need to be so super-generic that no client would understand any message.


-----Original Message-----
From:	tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Roger Hyam
Sent:	Wed 10/10/2007 12:08 PM
To:	Gregor Hagedorn
Cc:	tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Subject:	Re: [tdwg-tag] RE: tdwg-tag Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1

I am OK for changing the property name to 'tag' if that makes things  
simpler but feel it is a little uninformative. How about 'subjectTag' ?

Would this make it clearer that we can have multiple tags to an  

This doesn't answer the question of what the URL for the tag resolves  
to (could be a SKOS concept or an OWL instance or and OWL class or  
web page!). It could be any or all of these I guess. If we are taking  
a tagging approach the way the "subject concepts" are managed is up  
to the manager of these concepts and it might change through time or  
be the result of some form content negotiation surrounding the  
resolution mechanism.


On 10 Oct 2007, at 09:00, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:

> On 10/10/07, Eamonn O Tuama <eotuama at gbif.org> wrote:
>> Can't we keep the model simple and mandate that we are offering a  
>> faceted
>> classification, similar to a general tagging system like  
>> folksonomies?  So a
>> particular InfoItem might have content which pertains to both  
>> genetics and
>> ecology and when tagged with those two categories, the only  
>> inference that
>> can be drawn is that the content is relevant to both.  In a  
>> search, that
>> InfoItem would be returned for either of those categories, but is  
>> also very
>> likely to be appropriate to someone interested in "ecological  
>> genetics" who
>> would search on the categories "ecology + genetics" or vice versa.
> 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.
> What worries me is that too much seems to be desired in terms of using
> the vocabulary, i.e. we have been discussing what the category (and
> also the context...) could all be used for, and as I tried to show in
> my talk, sometimes the semantics of what subclasses or modifies what
> seem to be reversed already in the examples. My goal is to make this
> clear.
> The question remains what SPM is for. As you explain, it is more for
> finding information than algorithmically aggregating information. I
> understood the EOL/other taxon page use case to be about automatic
> aggregation.
>> In either case, I find it hard to see how anything useful can be  
>> derived
>> from such aggregations without human interpretation, e.g., someone  
>> preparing
>> a species page for EOL might harvest multiple InfoItems and  
>> arrange/edit
>> them as appropriate. Just being able to harvest data through the  
>> SPM is
> But that would be a one-time copy process. I think it would be
> important to clarify whether this is the use case or not. If it is, I
> am completely in favor of Eamonns "tagging approach".
>> surely helpful. In certain cases, where the domain might be  
>> restricted (an
>> invasive species group), the community may achieve more automated
>> aggregation by agreeing on how to use certain categories, e.g.,  I  
>> can see
>> benefit in being able to list multiple distributions of a  
>> particular species
>> one after the other, especially if biologists are tracking this  
>> over time
>> and the information is being continually updated.
> I think it would be beneficial to define specific kinds of infoitems
> for these use cases (especially distribution and organism
> interaction), to make it clear how the information is to be
> interpreted, and how it is extended.
> That would mean an InfoItem = tagged free-form text, and a
> Distribution and OrganismInteraction class, which could be similar,
> but don't have to be, and may grow into different directions.
> Essentially, this would allow to add further classes, which have even
> stronger differently structure for higher-structured data (categorical
> or quantitative data).
> How about that?
> Gregor
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag

tdwg-tag mailing list
tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list