[tdwg-tag] dwcterms (was: Embedding specimen (and other) annotations in NeXML)
hlapp at duke.edu
Tue Feb 24 19:52:40 CET 2009
On Feb 23, 2009, at 5:55 PM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp at duke.edu> wrote:
>> Thanks John - this now works and loads into Protege. Great!
>> A couple of random comments from a first inspection:
>> - There are lots of individuals that seem to correspond to classes
>> object properties (and seem to be replaced by them, which sounds
>> odd). Is
>> this by intention?
> I don't know what you mean by this. Can you give me an example?
As far as I can see the replaces relationships to classes have gone
away. For object properties, an example is AcceptedTaxon:
This seems fine.
BTW note that unless I'm missing something the base URLs http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/
and http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/rdf/dwcterms.rdf result in different URIs
for concepts (hence making them effectively different) for what you
may want to be the same (the URLs seem to be used interchangeably -
but maybe the idea behind this is different?).
>> - seeAlso often has the value 'not in ABCD', which is probably the
>> kind of value for this annotation.
> None of those values is technically very useful, as they are
> references to xpaths in a schema. As such, "not in ABCD" is no
> different functionally speaking from any of the other values. If
> seeAlso is not appropriate for this type of content (where is the
> reasoning for that?)
According to the RDF Schema spec, rdfs:seeAlso is "[...] used to
indicate a resource that might provide additional information about
the subject resource." The value of the property is supposed to be a
rdfs:Resource (i.e., a URI to/for a resource).
>> - There are two classes with label 'Taxon' (but different URIs).
> I see only one. What are the URIs?
Now there are actually three:
All three have label "Taxon", and are classes, and there is no
asserted relationship between them.
>> - Same properties and some classes have the date suffix in their
> Every one of them has a date suffix in its label as far as I can see.
> What are the exceptions?
There are no classes anymore now with a suffix in the label, but many
of the properties have it. For example:
For those there seems to be another term without the suffix.
> Again, all of them have the date suffix as far I I can see. Yes, term
> versioning is the motivation. They are all in the one document so that
> the entirety of the documentation, including history, can be produced
> from it. It isn't so much that there are a lot of updates expected as
> that there is a lot of historical nonsense to resolve unequivocally.
> Here it is all in one place.
Maybe it would be worth producing two versions - one with the history
that allows the maintainers to resolve issues, and one for public
consumption that has the cruft removed?
> [...] The solution, I think, is to add each base term without
> version information and give these terms rdfs:replaces with the
> value of the term with the version number. This would give a
> complete progression for any term up to the one currently
> in use. I have done that in a copy of the file just committed. Does
> that solve the problem adequately? Does it create any new ones?
Looks a lot better now - thanks!
BTW note that the server returns the ontology with mime-type text/html
rather than application/rdf+xml. Not a big deal, just the browser will
try to display it rather than downloading.
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
More information about the tdwg-tag