Hi Peter
Answering to your post with a bit of delay, and apologies for this answer
being longer than I expected, but that's what you get from waiting a week
... :)
Mostly ignoring the rest of the thread, not that you did not get insightful
answers so far, I would like to push a different approach
Thanks everyone, I am learning a lot throught this discussion :-)
There seems to be a common pattern emerging in the onlist and offlist
emails.
I am going to try to see if I understand these correctly, with examples.
It is probably best to think of several different representations of species
Hi Peter,
Impressive work -- on the topic of species, this seems to be the
dataset to end all datasets ;-)
I get confused by all the links though. Why is everything mentioned in
the file connected to everything else? Why are there three sets of
foaf:topic links, where everything is a
Hi Peter (ccing the SKOS list, as this is a SKOS implementation, after all :-)
I also think that's really a cool effort, with a great potential!
My question would be about your choices wrt. the use of relatedMatch and
closeMatch: why do we have
http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p
Hi Pete,
One can indeed understand that you prefer to have closeMatch between things
that are indeed much more similar.
I guess that in the first Linnaeus classification, pumas were considered to be
some form of cats, and then the name of the class was changed. Even if the
beast itself
Hi LOD'ers :-)
I am trying to work out some way to map the various semantic representations
for a species, in conjunction with a friendly three letter organization.
The goal of these documents is in part to improve findability of
information about species.
The hope is that they will also help
