On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Peter DeVries wrote: > Hi All, > > I is is my understanding that if we want to setup a web resource that defines > owl classes you can't use RDFa markup.
RDFa can markup pretty much any RDF, but you might not always be able to use the shortcuts. For instance, using @inlist can easily create an RDF collection, but OWL also requires that each element be marked with owl:Class AFAIKR. In the past, I've tried to markup my OWL documents using HTML+RDFa, RDF/XML and Turtle, available via content negotiation from the ontology URI. > For instance, if I wanted to mint an owl class for the taxon group Mammalia, > I would need to do that in one of the following ways. > > 1) An OWL ontology created with something like Protege > 2) A RDF file like http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf > 3) Using one of the various systems like Virtuoso, OpenStructs etc. > > This would be different that defining an instance of the class Taxon for the > Mammalia in RDFa > > I thought I would just put this to the list to check if my understanding of > this is correct. > > One option would be to write some custom application in Ruby on Rails but I > thought I would ask the list about other alternatives and what their > experiences are with them. Check out the rdf-rdfa Ruby gem; it has an RDF writer that uses Haml, so it can deal with quite custom output. You can try it on your favorite ontology using my RDF Distiller (http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller), just select the output format as "RDFa" or "HTML". Gregg > In the future we are looking into creating a system where various clades like > Mammalia, Felidae etc. are defined and allows less technical editors to add > and edit attributes that help define those groups. > > One thing to note is that various groups recognize different taxonomic clades > so the species entailed within one family on DBpedia is often different than > the species entailed in the Uniprot Taxonomy. > > What we would like is to allow different groups to assign a given species > concept to different classifications depending on their analysis needs. > > We have been able to do something like this with Protege but I think it would > be better to do this in a more user friendly way. > > We have also been thinking of defining subproperties for skos:broader and > skos:narrower that could be used to link the taxonomic levels together. > > :broaderTaxon and narrowerTaxon > > This would make it clearer that the link is to a broader or narrower taxon. > > In the past one of the leaders in the LOD community suggested creating a > separate predicate for these kinds of relations and I am thinking if these > subproperties would address that suggestion without creating to much > complication. > > Respectfully, > > - Pete > > P.S. I am currently in Woods Hole MA working the the Eol.org and > GlobalNames.org. I hope to have a new RDF dump soon that includes links > between my taxa and the related EoL pages. In the past, this links was > incomplete. I will update the list when the new RDF dump is available. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Pete DeVries > Department of Entomology > University of Wisconsin - Madison > 445 Russell Laboratories > 1630 Linden Drive > Madison, WI 53706 > Email: [email protected] > TaxonConcept & GeoSpecies Knowledge Bases > A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data Project > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
