Re: Lightweight RDF to Map Various Semantic Representations of Species

Hi Antoine,

The ubio LSID's are more of a "name-like" thing, there are different LSID's
for the entities:

Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2478181
Felis concolor Linnaeus, 1771 urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:110521

The Catalog of Life LSID seems to be an identifier for the species, however,
the LSID will change with each new yearly update to the Catalog of Life.
So the 2010 CoL LSID for the Cougar will be different than the 2009 CoL
LSID.

It is for this reason that I made the ubioLSID a skos:relatedMatch while
having the CoL LSID a skos:closeMatch.

Does that seem to make sense?

Thanks for your interest :-)

- Pete


On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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 skos:relatedMatch urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:105509
> and http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p skos:closeMatch
> http://purl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/9696
> ?
> All three seem to be about the same beast, namely the one at [1]. I'd be
> very much interested in hearing about your decision criterion!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.ubio.org/browser/details.php?namebankID=105509
>
>
>  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 serve as a bridge from the LOD to
>> species information from the three letter organization and it's partners.
>>
>> The resources are mapped using skos:closeMatch.
>>
>> This should allow consumers to choose those attributes of each species
>> resource that they think are appropriate.
>>
>> It has been suggested to me that more comprehensive documents describing
>> species should be in the form of OWL documents, so I have included
>> nonfunctional links to these hypothetical resources.
>>
>> I have the following examples, and am looking for comments and
>> suggestions.
>>
>> RDF Example  http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf
>>
>> <http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf>Ontology
>> http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ont/txn.owl
>>
>> <http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ont/txn.owl>Ontology Doc
>> http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ont/txn_doc/index.html
>>
>> VOID              http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ont/void.rdf
>>
>> <http://rdf.taxonconcept.org/ont/txn_doc/index.html>I look forward to
>> your comments and suggestions, :-)
>>
>>
>> - Pete
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Pete DeVries
>> Department of Entomology
>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>> 1630 Linden Drive
>> Madison, WI 53706
>> GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------