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>
