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

Re: Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:26:41 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <59817.81.2.120.180.1210346801.squirrel@goddamn.co.uk>
To: "Renato Golin" <renato@ebi.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>

> Plain text for divisions can lead to spell problems (not only caps) and
> the information won't be wrong, but also putting all species names in a
> list is not possible. How would you address that?

The same could be said for foaf:name. FOAF doesn't have a big list of name
URIs that you can choose from, and nor should it. URIs are good, but
literals have their place in RDF too.

> In Authority you state what I got as the citation. Will you link to any
> journal database or have a local citation list? Just saying "Linnaeus,
> 1758" is not enough for most cases.

A taxonomic authority is similar to a citation, but it's not the same.
It's actually closer to a traditional namespacing mechanism. It
effectively qualifies the binomial term being used, so "Homo sapiens
(Linnaeus, 1758)" means "Homo sapiens, as would have been understood by
Linnaeus in 1758".

For a citation that is, say, a paper on the species in question, then
biol:seeAlso can be used. For a citation justifying your claim that Foo is
of species Bar, then you're getting into reification territory.

-- 
Toby Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 15:27:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 May 2008 15:27:31 GMT