Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08 -0500 Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote: I would appreciate feedback on these models and any suggestions for how they could be improved. :-) The following: @prefix txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a owl:Class ; txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; foaf:page foo . Appears to be an almost identical way of representing a species concept to the one I came up with a couple of years ago: @prefix txn: http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a txn:Taxonomy ; # note: txn:Taxonomy rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; txn:seeAlso foo . I wonder if you could reuse the URIs I minted rather than creating new ones? If we could stamp out any incompatibilities between the two ontologies, then I'd be happy to point the http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns URI at your ontology, so we'd just have a single merged ontology. -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
There is also a community-supported ontology for taxonomy called Darwin Core at: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/#kingdom On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08 -0500 Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote: I would appreciate feedback on these models and any suggestions for how they could be improved. :-) The following: @prefix txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a owl:Class ; txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; foaf:page foo . Appears to be an almost identical way of representing a species concept to the one I came up with a couple of years ago: @prefix txn: http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a txn:Taxonomy ; # note: txn:Taxonomy rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; txn:seeAlso foo . I wonder if you could reuse the URIs I minted rather than creating new ones? If we could stamp out any incompatibilities between the two ontologies, then I'd be happy to point the http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns URI at your ontology, so we'd just have a single merged ontology.
Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
Hi Toby, I have what I call a lightweight phylogeny that should match up with the fields for the DarwinCore. However, these are more for user convenience, since I don't believe that a species concepts should be modeled as having a fixed phylogeny. A phylogeny is an hypothesis which changes over time. The TaxonConcept species concepts are modeled so that a species can have several phylogenies. You will note that I link out to two alternatives at the class level for each concept. If the full phylogeny determines the species concept then *Felis concolor*and *Puma concolor* are different things. Same would be said for *Ochlerotatus triseriatus* and *Aedes triseriatus*. Why not use the DarwinCore: 1) At the time I was doing this the DarwinCore was changing quite often. I tried to keep track so that if someone wanted to merge/translate it would be fairly easy. This is why I have names that track their names but in a different ontology. 2) There appears to be a subtile difference between how species are thought of between DarwinCore and what I am doing. This has been changing over time but years ago when I was started it was that the species name is the concept. Like before, this makes Ochlerotatus triseriatus and Aedes triseriatus two different things. It seems that the DarwinCore team maybe changing their mind on this as well. It seems that they are moving toward something that involves the species concept being some combination of all the names that have been used. To use the DarwinCore ontology directly and appropriately then you have to accept how they see species and how that species relates to all the other parts of the data set. I had advocated for a URI for SpeciesConcept. It was in DarwinCore then it was out, and I am not sure where it is now. They seem to want to have the species concept be defined by referencing a particular published description. This is fine but they are assuming that everyone who tags a species observation are doing so after reading the published description. I can say that this might be how they believe or want to people people are operating but that is not in my experience what they do in real life. By doing this they are basically saying that the person who identified the species did so based on the written species description. This is not true for the vast majority of observation records. This comes into play when I think about, did they mean Aedes triseriatus or Ochlerotatus triseriatus? The last time I tried marking up records in DarwinCore I was not able to make the kinds of SPARQL queries I am interested in. For some reason they also insist on creating new vocabularies for widely used things like latitude and longitude. Why not the geo vocab or some extension of it? Why so many literals that would make more sense represented as URI's? I think that some of these issues will be worked out in the future. And I think that when full DarwinCore records start appearing on the LOD, they will notice some of these on their own. Fortunately, they seemed to have come around on their previous insistence in using LSIDs, rather than Linked Data. That said, if your vocabulary does not entail some compatibility issues I would be happy to map these as equivalent properties. This leads to a general question for the LOD community. There are several versions of these taxonomies consisting of some combination of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, specific epithet and so on. Some groups use additional levels like subclass, subfamily, etc. These are used for literals in DarwinCore, DBpedia, Bio2RDF etc. The problem that I run into when using another vocabulary you entail all sorts of other modeling differences that lead to incompatibilities. How would one map, these together without pulling in all the other assertions included with their model? As a literal a number of these have something similar to ontology:kingdom = Animalia Which should be interpreted as this is a Biological Kingdom with the name Animalia, however each of the vocabularies bring with them all sorts of other statements about what a kingdom is an how it relates to other entities. For instance, Bio2RDF follows the subclassing of the NCBI Hierarchy. (Not the wrong thing to do, just not the same thing) This is one of the reasons that I don't use sameAs to link to related things like Bio2RDF. That said I should make point to reference your work and will do so. Also check this: curl -v -H Accept: application/rdf+xml http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#kingdom It should work like this curl -v -H Accept: application/rdf+xml http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#kingdom Note, the DarwinCore has the same problem. I hope this has addressed you questions and concerns. Respectfully, - Pete On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08 -0500 Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote: I would appreciate feedback on
IEEE GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS\'10, Miami, USA, 6-10 December 2010)
** Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. ** Dear Colleagues: Please disseminate this message in your networks / subscribed lists. We also invite you to contribute a paper to this workshop. * IEEE GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security WPS'10 (Miami, USA, 6-10 December 2010) http://grid.chu.edu.tw/wps2010/ * --- 1. Introduction 2. Topics 3. Important dates 4. Paper format & submission 5. Organizing Committee 6. History of WPS --- = 1. Introduction = Web and Pervasive Environments (WPE) are emerging rapidly as an exciting new paradigm including ubiquitous, web, grid, ubiquitous and peer-to-peer computing to provide computing and communication services any time and anywhere. In order to realize their advantages, it requires the security services and Applications to be suitable for WPE. If they are realized, a user will be able to remotely access and control all information and web appliances in the workplace as well as at home and office, easily and conveniently use various services to enable working at home, remote education, remote diagnosis, virtual shopping, network gaming, and high quality VOD with no limitations on space and time. WPS2010 is a successor of the 1st International Workshop on Application and Security service in Web and pervAsive eNvirionments (ASWAN-07, HuangShan, China, June, 2007), the 2nd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-08, Hong Kong, March, 2008) and the 3rd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-09, Galveston, Texas, March, 2009) WPS2010 workshop is intended to foster the dissemination of state-of-the-art research in the area of secure WPE including security models, security systems, application services and novel security applications associated with its utilization. Also, it offers the possibility to discuss protocols and protocol characteristics with those people that are using them for solving their scientific problems. We plan to publish high quality papers, which cover the various web and security issues and practical applications in WPE. === 2. Topics === Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Security web-based collaboration applications and services * Model for secure web services * Wireless sensor networks / RFID application and security for WPE * Intelligent multimedia security services for WPE * Key management and authentication in WPE * Network security issues and protocols in WPE * Access control in WPE * Privacy Protection in WPE * Cryptographic algorithms for WPE * Data privacy and trustiness for WPE * Forensics Issue for WPE * Privacy and anonymity for WPE * Security in P2P networks and Grid computing in WPE * Trust management in WPE * Commercial and industrial applications for WPE === 3. Important Dates === Paper Submission: July 2, 2010 Decision notification: August 13, 2010 Camera-ready and registration due: August 31, 2010 == 4. Paper format & submission == Papers must be submitted electronically in Adobe PDF format to the submission system. http://edas.info/N8718 Papers must have authors' affiliation and contact information on the first page. Papers must be unpublished and not being considered elsewhere for publication. In particular, papers submitted to WPS2010 must not be concurrently submitted to GLOBECOM in identical or modified form. Prospective authors are encouraged to submit an IEEE conference style paper up to 5 pages (including all text, figures, and references) through EDAS submission system http://edas.info/N8718 One additional page will be allowed with additional publication fee. An accepted paper must be registered before the registration deadline. An accepted paper must be presented at the workshop. Failure to register before the deadline will result in automatic withdrawal of the paper from the workshop proceedings and the program. All accepted and presented papers will be included in the IEEE GLOBECOM proceedings and IEEE digital library. GLOBECOM has the right to remove an accepted and registered but not presented paper from the IEEE digital library. === 5. Organizing Committee === Workshop Co-Chairs: Jong Hyuk Park, Seoul National University of Technology, Korea Robert C. H. Hsu, Chung Hua University, Taiwan International Advisory Committee Mohammad S. Obaidat (Monmouth University, USA) Laurence T. Yang (St. Francis Xavier University, Canada) Jianhua Ma (Hosei University, Japan) Jiannong Cao (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong
An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
All, My brains breaking over this one - can see it and can't quite flesh out the details (or figure out if it's worth it) - it's very much a marmite (love/hate) idea that I haven't fully formed, and is targeted at addressing some common problems with namedgraph, reification, provenance tracking and metadata about data. And as I'm sure you realise by now I'm not afraid to be wrong or simply throw out ideas in to the public domain, so here goes: 1: Introduce a 'value' property Where currently we can say: :me foaf:name 'nathan' . I'd propose introducing an ex:value property that allows us to say: :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ] . or :me foaf:name :myname . :myname ex:value 'nathan' . I'm hoping the basic human understanding of this is pretty obvious, sorting out the domain range of ex:value, class of :myname, ontology details and related are hurting my head a bit at the minute. And thus you could describe a value: :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ; ex:type xsd:string ; ex:language 'en-gb' . ] . And do some funkier stuff: :me foaf:mbox :myemail ; :myemail ex:value mailto:nat...@webr3.org ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' ; dcterms:created '2010-06-03T15:19:35-05:00' ; dcterms:replaces :oldmail . :oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . so because of the way ex:value works, in there we have the triple: mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . but we've also introduced a way to make non http URIs dereferencable.. http://webr3.org/nathan#oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . see why my head is hurting with this? 2: Double Serialization In a way we can already do this with rdf:XMLLiteral :x content:encoded 'rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;rdf:Description rdf:about=http://ex.org/egg#i;rdfs:label xml:lang=enegg/rdfs:label/rdf:Description/rdf:RDF'^^http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral . so we could say: :x a ex:NamedGraph ; ex:graph 'rdf:RDF...'^^rdf:XMLLiteral . or including ex:value as outlined in 1 earlier: :graph1 a ex:NamedGraph ; ex:graph [ ex:value '''some serialized rdf in here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' . ] . Would allow you to strap provenance / meta to a value and/or the named graph.. and here's where it's either so simple, or so complex that my brain simply pickles: example onto: ex:graph rdfs:domain ex:NamedGraph; rdfs:range ex:Graph . example graph: :graph1 ex:graph :v3 . :v3 ex:value '''some serialized rdf in here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' ; dcterms:replace :v2 . v2 ex:value '''old serialized rdf here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' ; dcterms:replace :v1 . .. I'm sure there's something in using [ log:content, log:n3String, log:uri ] here instead, and quite sure that by stating that graph contents where either a Truth or a Falsehood you could use for rdf updates.. So, is there something in this, am I going down a wrong path, thoughts, feedback, anything? Best, Nathan
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
On 6 Jun 2010, at 17:17, Nathan wrote: 1: Introduce a 'value' property I have good news :-) rdf:value [1] Damian [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rdfValue
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
Damian Steer wrote: On 6 Jun 2010, at 17:17, Nathan wrote: 1: Introduce a 'value' property I have good news :-) rdf:value [1] Brilliant, I hoped that's what it was for (but lack of documentation led me astray!) Great, Nathan
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: ... :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ; ex:type xsd:string ; ex:language 'en-gb' . ] . foaf:name has range rdfs:Literal, this still allows us to say: :me foaf:name [ And do some funkier stuff: :me foaf:mbox :myemail ; :myemail ex:value mailto:nat...@webr3.org ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' ; dcterms:created '2010-06-03T15:19:35-05:00' ; dcterms:replaces :oldmail . :oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . so because of the way ex:value works, in there we have the triple: mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . but we've also introduced a way to make non http URIs dereferencable.. http://webr3.org/nathan#oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . see why my head is hurting with this? 2: Double Serialization In a way we can already do this with rdf:XMLLiteral :x content:encoded 'rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf= http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;rdf:Description rdf:about= http://ex.org/egg#i;rdfs:label xml:lang=enegg/rdfs:label/rdf:Description/rdf:RDF'^^ http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral . so we could say: :x a ex:NamedGraph ; ex:graph 'rdf:RDF...'^^rdf:XMLLiteral . or including ex:value as outlined in 1 earlier: :graph1 a ex:NamedGraph ; ex:graph [ ex:value '''some serialized rdf in here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' . ] . Would allow you to strap provenance / meta to a value and/or the named graph.. and here's where it's either so simple, or so complex that my brain simply pickles: example onto: ex:graph rdfs:domain ex:NamedGraph; rdfs:range ex:Graph . example graph: :graph1 ex:graph :v3 . :v3 ex:value '''some serialized rdf in here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' ; dcterms:replace :v2 . v2 ex:value '''old serialized rdf here''' ; ex:type 'text/rdf+n3' ; dcterms:replace :v1 . .. I'm sure there's something in using [ log:content, log:n3String, log:uri ] here instead, and quite sure that by stating that graph contents where either a Truth or a Falsehood you could use for rdf updates.. So, is there something in this, am I going down a wrong path, thoughts, feedback, anything? Best, Nathan
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
ops, accidentally sent too eraly On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: ... :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ; ex:type xsd:string ; ex:language 'en-gb' . ] . foaf:name has range rdfs:Literal, this still allows us to say: :me foaf:name [ ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] in this case we know about the bnode that it stands for a literal value and the ex:sha_1 value of that literal. your way of specifying the type of the literal reminds me the recent discussion started by Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Feb/0174.html following this we could also say: :me foaf:name [ xsd:string 'nathan' ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] . which expresses the same as: :me foaf:name [ owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] . And do some funkier stuff: :me foaf:mbox :myemail ; :myemail ex:value mailto:nat...@webr3.org ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' ; dcterms:created '2010-06-03T15:19:35-05:00' ; dcterms:replaces :oldmail . :oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . so because of the way ex:value works, in there we have the triple: mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . ex:way seems to work the same way as owl:sameAs ex:sha_1 to me seems to make sense with literals but not with a mailbox, there the foaf-approach of having a distinct property convinces me more: mbox point to the mailbox which is a resource typically identified by its mailto-uri, mbox_sha1sum by contrast point to a literal with an sha1-encoding of the mailto-uri of an email address of the subject. Your second usage of ex:sha1 ties a resource to its name which seems very limiting. the statement mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto: oldem...@webr3.org . seems however perfectly sound I don't see why this should need the construct with ex:value an the additional node. reto
Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
Toby Inkster wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08 -0500 Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote: I would appreciate feedback on these models and any suggestions for how they could be improved. :-) The following: @prefix txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a owl:Class ; txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; foaf:page foo . Appears to be an almost identical way of representing a species concept to the one I came up with a couple of years ago: @prefix txn: http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a txn:Taxonomy ; # note: txn:Taxonomy rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; txn:seeAlso foo . I wonder if you could reuse the URIs I minted rather than creating new ones? Peter, +1 Re. reuse request from Toby. It early days, so little or no cost ;_ If we could stamp out any incompatibilities between the two ontologies, then I'd be happy to point the http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns URI at your ontology, so we'd just have a single merged ontology. Great! -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: ops, accidentally sent too eraly On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: ... :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ; ex:type xsd:string ; ex:language 'en-gb' . ] . foaf:name has range rdfs:Literal, this still allows us to say: :me foaf:name [ ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] in this case we know about the bnode that it stands for a literal value and the ex:sha_1 value of that literal. your way of specifying the type of the literal reminds me the recent discussion started by Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Feb/0174.html following this we could also say: :me foaf:name [ xsd:string 'nathan' ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] . which expresses the same as: :me foaf:name [ owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] . so are we saying that all of these express the same: :me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name [ xsd:string 'nathan' . ] . :me foaf:name [ owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ] . :me foaf:name [ rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ] . :me foaf:name :myname . :myname xsd:string 'nathan' . :me foaf:name :myname . :myname owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name :myname . :myname rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ? I can see the rdf:value and owl:sameAs versions expressing the same, unsure about the xsd:string version.. what about.. :London rdfs:label [ rdf:value London@en, Londres@fr, Лондон@ru ]. or.. :London rdfs:label [ rdf:value London@en ] , [ rdf:value Londres@fr ] , [ rdf:value Лондон@ru ] . And do some funkier stuff: :me foaf:mbox :myemail ; :myemail ex:value mailto:nat...@webr3.org ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' ; dcterms:created '2010-06-03T15:19:35-05:00' ; dcterms:replaces :oldmail . :oldmail ex:value mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . so because of the way ex:value works, in there we have the triple: mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto:oldem...@webr3.org . ex:way seems to work the same way as owl:sameAs ex:sha_1 to me seems to make sense with literals but not with a mailbox, there the foaf-approach of having a distinct property convinces me more: mbox point to the mailbox which is a resource typically identified by its mailto-uri, mbox_sha1sum by contrast point to a literal with an sha1-encoding of the mailto-uri of an email address of the subject. Your second usage of ex:sha1 ties a resource to its name which seems very limiting. the statement mailto:nat...@webr3.org dcterms:replaces mailto: oldem...@webr3.org . seems however perfectly sound I don't see why this should need the construct with ex:value an the additional node. cheers for the comments, Nathan
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
On 6 Jun 2010, at 19:54, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: your way of specifying the type of the literal reminds me the recent discussion started by Henry Story: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Feb/0174.html following this we could also say: :me foaf:name [ xsd:string 'nathan' ; ex:sha_1 'KLSJFS9F7S9D8F7SLADFSLKDJF98SD7' . ] . Yes, it would be possible to extend xsd:string so that this works, as explained in this email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Mar/0037.html But also see the follow up http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Mar/0038.html And as we don't control the xsd: namespace, we can't tell if they will use this interpretation or the inverse. In the case of the cert ontology we can define a datatype to also be such a relation. See: http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert.n3 Henry
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: so are we saying that all of these express the same: :me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name [ owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ] . this two mean the same :me foaf:name [ xsd:string 'nathan' . ] . this should mean the same, but while not illegal the specs do not define the meaning clearly :me foaf:name [ rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ] . I find it hard to communicate using a term that has no meaning on its own (accoring to: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value) :me foaf:name :myname . :myname xsd:string 'nathan' . :me foaf:name :myname . :myname owl:sameAs 'nathan'^^xsd:string . these two graphs are equivalent and entail the original graph, additional they assign the uri :myname to the name :me foaf:name :myname . :myname rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . meaningless rdf:value again ? I can see the rdf:value and owl:sameAs versions expressing the same, unsure about the xsd:string version.. what about.. :London rdfs:label [ rdf:value London@en, Londres@fr, Лондон@ru ]. clearly owl:samesAs couldn't be used here, and a label is usually a literal and not a multivalued object or.. :London rdfs:label [ rdf:value London@en ] , [ rdf:value Londres@fr ] , [ rdf:value Лондон@ru ] . :London rdfs:label London@en, Londres@fr, Лондон@ru. cheers, reto
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: so are we saying that all of these express the same: :me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name [ rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . ] . I find it hard to communicate using a term that has no meaning on its own (accoring to: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value) :me foaf:name :myname . :myname rdf:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string . meaningless rdf:value again Anything stopping me creating an ex:value which does have a strong meaning and definition where in usage both of the following express the same: :me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string ] . or does a property with this meaning exist (?) / any input on just how one would define this with rdfs/owl Best, Nathan
Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:22, Nathan wrote: Anything stopping me creating an ex:value which does have a strong meaning and definition where in usage both of the following express the same: :me foaf:name 'nathan'^^xsd:string . :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan'^^xsd:string ] . seems to me you want owl:sameAs . Henry
RE: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on!
Hi! Just a few notes concerning your ideas and OWL DL (I don't know whether this is important for you or not, but some people might find it relevant): Nathan wrote: 1: Introduce a 'value' property Where currently we can say: :me foaf:name 'nathan' . I'd propose introducing an ex:value property that allows us to say: :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ] . or :me foaf:name :myname . :myname ex:value 'nathan' . The FOAF spec defines foaf:name as a owl:DatatypeProperty [1], and therefore cannot be used in OWL DL with blank nodes (representing anonymous individuals) or URIs (representing named individuals) in object position. No problem with RDF(S) or OWL Full, though. I'm hoping the basic human understanding of this is pretty obvious, sorting out the domain range of ex:value, class of :myname, ontology details and related are hurting my head a bit at the minute. And thus you could describe a value: :me foaf:name [ ex:value 'nathan' ; ex:type xsd:string ; In OWL DL, you cannot use a datatype name in the object position of an object or data property (ex:type will be either an object property or a data property). If this was a typo and you really mean rdf:type, it is still not allowed in OWL DL, since xsd:string is not a class in OWL DL. Again, it is fine in RDF(S) or OWL Full. And do some funkier stuff: :me foaf:mbox :myemail ; :myemail ex:value mailto:nat...@webr3.org ; Above, you use ex:value with literals, but here you use it with a URI. In OWL DL, you have to decide for one: either ex:value is a data property, then URIs are not allowed; or it is an object property, then literals are not allowed. Again, no problems with RDF(S) and OWL Full. Michael [1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100101.rdf -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider === FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ===
Re: Request for Feedback, Suggestions on TaxonConcept Species Concepts
Hi Toby, Here is where we seem to have some differences. txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; I looked at the latest DarwinCore http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon Since it would be helpful to allow people to rewrite these easily, or the txn: set equivalent property to. I think it might be best to adopt their set. * * *genus: Carex* * * *specificEpithet: viridula* * * *infraspecificEpithet: elatior* * * *taxonRank: varietas* * * *scientificNameAuthorship: (Schltdl.) Crins* * * *Ideally the scientific name would include the authorship and have three parts to comply with the nomenclatural code (ICBN in this case):* * * *Carex viridula var. elatior (Schltdl.) Crins* I am thinking I should do the following: txn:genus txn:specificEpithet txn:infraspecificEpithet - am not using these now txn:scientificNameAuthorship txn:taxonRank DarwinCore does not have a dwc:commonName. I can then set your versions for the same thing as equivalent properties in my ontology. I will also cite your ontology in my ontology doc. Does everyone think that this will work? Or is there some side effect I am not thinking off? Should I also set the DarwinCore attributes as equivalent properties. If you look at this page: http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon You will see what I am talking about in regards to Darwin core literals vs. URI's The taxonRanks should probably be represented as URI's rather than literals. Also note that it is likely that different groups, Wikipedia, ITIS, NCBI etc. place the taxa in slightly different groups. So we are likely to see things like this in the cloud, note the duplicate genus and epithet names for the same vocab. http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/x6gDo#Species txn:genus = Lithobates txn:genus = Rana txn:epithet = catesbeianus txn:epithet = catesbeiana Also Note that it is difficult to tell which genus name goes with which epithet? foaf:page rdf:resource=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog/ foaf:page rdf:resource= http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rana_catesbeiana/ foaf:page rdf:resource=http://www.eol.org/pages/330963/ foaf:page rdf:resource=http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/10586/ foaf:page rdf:resource= http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSNamp;search_value=775084 / txn:hasGBIF13801188/txn:hasGBIF txn:hasITIS775084/txn:hasITIS txn:hasEOL330963/txn:hasEOL txn:hasNCBI8400/txn:hasNCBI This is one reason that I have started to think about linking out to several alternative phylogenies. Right now I only have some to class. txn:inDBpediaClade rdf:resource=http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Amphibian / txn:inCoLClass rdf:resource= http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/phylo/CoL/CoL_2010_base.owl#Class_Amphibia / On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote: Toby Inkster wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:06:08 -0500 Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote: I would appreciate feedback on these models and any suggestions for how they could be improved. :-) The following: @prefix txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a owl:Class ; txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:epithet plexippus ; txn:author_year (Linnaeus, 1758) ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; foaf:page foo . Appears to be an almost identical way of representing a species concept to the one I came up with a couple of years ago: @prefix txn: http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns# . http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species a txn:Taxonomy ; # note: txn:Taxonomy rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. txn:kingdom Animalia ; txn:phylum Arthropoda ; txn:class Insecta ; txn:order Lepidoptera ; txn:family Nymphalidae ; txn:genus Danaus ; txn:species plexippus ; txn:authority Linnaeus, 1758 ; txn:commonName Monarch Butterfly ; txn:seeAlso foo . I wonder if you could reuse the URIs I minted rather than creating new ones? Peter, +1 Re. reuse request from Toby. It early days, so little or no cost ;_ If we could stamp out any incompatibilities between the two ontologies, then I'd be happy to point the http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns URI at your ontology, so we'd just have a single merged ontology. Great! -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen -- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell
Re: Organization ontology
Thanks to everyone for the good feedback and comments. I've made some small changes to the ontology based on all the feedback. These are largely small bug fixes and (hopefully) improvements in documentation. The significant changes include: * addition of a transitive version of org:subOrganizationOf * improved mapping to foaf * reversed direction of org:resultingOrganzation (to be org:resultedFrom) for corrected compatibility with OPMV The full set of changes are listed in the updated documentation [1]. Dave [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html#changes On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 08:50 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. The ontology is documented at [1] and some discussion on the requirements and design process are at [2]. W3C have been kind enough to offer to host the ontology within the W3C namespace [3]. This does not imply that W3C endorses the ontology, nor that it is part of any standards process at this stage. They are simply providing a stable place for posterity. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Dave, Jeni, John [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/category/category/developers/organization-ontology [3] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# (available in RDF/XML, N3, Turtle via conneg or append .rdf/.n3/.ttl)
Re: An introduction of LOD features of EUNIS
Dear Soren, I took a quick look at the EUNIS database. Considering this year is the International Year of Biodiversity can you tell me if similar projects exist for other geographical regions or any projects of a global nature? Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean www.rainbowwarriors.net Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide www.projectparadigm.info EarthForge: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm www.earthforge.info, www.developmentforge.info MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development www.metaportal.info SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project www.semanticwebsoftware.info This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Søren Roug soren.r...@eea.europa.eu wrote: From: Søren Roug soren.r...@eea.europa.eu Subject: An introduction of LOD features of EUNIS To: public-lod@w3.org Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 9:16 AM Hi lod-public, Peter de Vries alerted me to the presence of this mailing list, and since you're currently discussing species modeling, I thought I would add my 2 cents. I'm the maintainer of a site called EUNIS, which is used by the European Commission to determine whether species, habitat types or sites need a change in legislation and protection. There are about 200.000 species in the database. We have over the last couple of months given it an overhaul and added some linked data functionality. It is still a work in progress, and we'll continue the improvements. The way we have implemented Linked Data is to look at the accept header, and then either send text/html or application/rdf+xml without a redirection. This means that for e.g. http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/1038 the HTML and the RDF output is the same URL. A note about our semantics. We're not using the predicate skos:closeMatch like Pete. We have created two predicates. 1. sameSynonym, which links a binomial name and author to the same binomial name and author in the foreign database. (taking into account different spellings and abbreviations). The purpose is to validate that our name is used by at least one other database. 2. sameSpecies, which links from a EUNIS accepted name to an accepted name in the foreign database. The side-effect is that the species name might change when you follow the link. sameSpecies is a sub-property of owl:sameAs. We also have negative matches: notSameSynonym and notSameSpecies. These are used when there is a high likelyhood of assuming it is the same species, and a maintainer has determined it is not. Practical examples: Danaus plexippus (Monarch butterfly) http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910 Canis lupus (Gray wolf) http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910 The Polish site Lasy Janowskie http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/90910 Best regards, Søren Roug European Environment Agency
