W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2008

Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1

From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 23:59:58 +0100
Message-Id: <554E077B-821D-40BE-8F2E-1D21B802CD99@g5n.co.uk>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Unable to find a vocabulary that was satisfactory for my needs, I've  
put together a simple vocabulary for biological taxonomy. The idea is  
to make it powerful enough to cover 80% of use cases, but still  
simple for most non-expert biologists to use.

Namespace and spec is:

	http://purl.org/NET/biol/0.1/

I'm posting this to the RDFa mailing list as I thought they might be  
interested in it - the spec uses RDFa to provide a full RDF schema  
for the namespace. (There is a rel=alternate link to an RDF/XML  
version; and content negotiation serves up the RDF/XML version to  
agents that specifically request it.)

I'm also posting this to the semantic web mailing list because I'd  
like some feedback on it. It's my first schema, so I'd like to know  
if I've made any obvious mistakes. Any design anti-patterns that I've  
triggered. I imagine that including the version number in the  
namespace URI might count as one, but I should mention that I plan on  
keeping the same namespace URI for subsequent versions of the spec,  
provided that they don't introduce changes which directly contradict  
the initial specification. (e.g. introducing new terms and  
deprecating old ones should be safe to keep the namespace URI; but if  
I actually remove terms or radically change their meanings, then I'd  
move to the /0.2/ URI.)

What do people think?

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 23:00:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 May 2008 23:00:49 GMT