This kind of facet hierarchy would work for me, so long as the hierarchies are not constrained to be trees (i.e., and DAG will do), to preserve the ability for a thing to be multiply categorized (like Protege OWL handles its classes in the class browser).
Of course, the presentations will be important. The obvious would be explorer-style tree. Others? Mark At 09:41 AM 12/12/2007, you wrote: >Hi David > >Terry will tell you his opinion - here my 2p as a systematist. > > >As a systematist, I am working with hierarchies, > >Subspecies > Species > Genus > Family > Up > >Check out >http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:210/hymenoptera/db_entry.by_taxon?taxon_name=2506&module=list_children2_html&text_entry= > >And there you can go down to children, or up the hierarchy to partents. > >But I am also working with synonyms, such as can be seen for Formica rufa > >http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:8880/hymenoptera/nomenclator.name_entry?text_entry=Formica+rufa&Submit=Submit+Query > > > >Behind any of those names is a part (treatment) in a systematics >publication, which we are using as baseline for our facets. > >Here is also a little instructive movie explaining the issue of synonyms, >taxonomic concepts, etc. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA_9zofX1ME > >Does this make sense? > >Donat > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of David Huynh >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:26 AM >To: General List >Subject: Re: new exibit on madagascar ants > >Hi Terry, > >Could you just represent the data as you naturally/intuitively would? >I'd be interested to know what's natural/intuitive for you. > >David > >Terry Catapano wrote: > > David, > > > > I could provide you with an exhibit of species descriptions in which > > the species should be grouped under genera. How should the > > hierarchical facets be represented in the JSON data? > > > > /Terry > > > > On Dec 8, 2007 6:35 PM, David Huynh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Mark Feblowitz wrote: > >> > >>> I strongly second this. Simple facets push all such natural > >>> hierarchies into much less natural property structures. I suspect > >>> many of us would appreciate some kind of hierarchical representation of >facets. > >>> > >>> > >> Let's work together on this: If you could provide me with an exhibit > >> with data in need of hierarchical facets and tell me how such facets > >> should work, then I'll try to implement it. It's always better to work > >> with realistic data. > >> > >> > >>> While we're waiting, are there any good examples out there of using > >>> properties as a surrogate to facet structuring? > >>> > >>> > >> I'm not sure what you meant... Could you explain? > >> > >> David > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> General mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > General mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general > > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >[email protected] >http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >[email protected] >http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/general
