W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Using RDF to describe biological taxonomy.

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:22:16 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040329121949.00bcc3c0@127.0.0.1>
To: Tim Nowaczyk <zimage@cs.wisc.edu>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

An indirect answer:  unfortunately, I'm offline so I can't track down the 
links.

I vaguely recall that the zoology department at Oxford University are doing 
some work with RDF and/or DAML/OWL.  I haven't a clue if its relevant to 
your question, but seems to me it's worth tracking down/checking out.

[later] URI:  http://www.bioimage.org/

#g
--

At 22:26 26/03/04 -0600, Tim Nowaczyk wrote:

>I've set this up, and I'd like your comments.  I've used the ITIS
>database along with some perl to describe biological taxonomy (Kingdom,
>Phylum, etc..)  in the style of wordnet.
>
>Homo Sapiens (species)
>http://66.168.24.195:8081/~tim/taxonomy/0.1/tsn/180092
>
>Primates (Order)
>http://66.168.24.195:8081/~tim/taxonomy/0.1/tsn/180089
>
>I'd like to get this to production quality.  I wanted avoid creating my
>own vocabulary, which is why I am using rdfs:comment for the rank
>and rdfs:title for the latin name.  The more I think about it, the more
>I'm convicted to create a vocabulary.
>
>Before I go any further, I'd like your input.  Is there a better way of
>doing this?  Is this a stupid idea that noone will ever use?  I'm new to
>RDF, so I need your comments.
>
>Thanks for your time,
>Tim Nowaczyk
>
>--
>----------Tim Nowaczyk----------zimage@upl.cs.wisc.edu------------------
>| GPG fingerprint = 1612 3E41 D649 63ED 222D  EB27 E84D 4274 392C A50A

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 07:45:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC