- From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:50:51 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3833bf630909041750i2ac1c056s841d486a6a156c73@mail.gmail.com>
I have a new version of the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base Dataset at: http://lod.geospecies.org/ You can download the new data dump at: http://lod.geospecies.org/geospecies.rdf.tar.tz It is either in the LOD could or will be soon. The major differences between this version are: 1) Shorter bit.ly-like identifiers: Ochlerotatus triseriatus Old http://species.geospecies.org/spec_concept_uuid/84b8badd-b899-40ea-8f89-f39f3048c270/ New http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz 2) The relationship between entities and documents At the family and species levels these work in the following way (still need to port these to RDFa) The entity itself http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz The XHTML page http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz.html The RDF page http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz.rdf At the higher levels the pages are xhtml rd. Order Carnivora The entity itself http://lod.geospecies.org/orders/jtSaY The XHTML RDFa page http://lod.geospecies.org/orders/jtSaY.html The RDF page http://lod.geospecies.org/orders/jtSaY.rdf 3) The current ontology is in development and I would only use it to look up the meaning of the different terms. I am not yet confident that it works as expected with other ontologies. As with the older version, the ontology is not included in the RDF data dump. The ontology is here http://rdf.geospecies.org/ont/geospecies.owl It is different from the old ontology at: http://rdf.geospecies.org/ont/gsontology.owl The ontology documentation is here: http://lod.geospecies.org/ont_doc/index.html 4) The new vocabulary attempt to use more standard vocabularies including skos, foaf, and others. 5) My long term intention is to move to this new version and set my old URI's to redirect to the new URI's. 6) How does this relate to TaxonConcept? A) TaxonConcept provides human and machine readable species description documents that help describe the attributes and variation within a species. These will take some time before they become accurate and informative. B) GeoSpecies will eventually be making statements about the entities defined by TaxonConcept What I would like to do is say this entity http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz is defined by http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz But I would like people to be able to disambiguate the statements made by geospecies and those by taxonconcept. I am not sure the best way to do this and I thought that the members of this list might be able to give me some good advice. Right now they are very similar TaxonConcept http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz GeoSpecies http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz C) GeoSpecies places the entities into a specific hierarchy which you may or may not agree with. The TaxonConcept entities are not placed in a hierarchy other than saying that the are species level entities. The TaxonConcept entities assert that they are a species, but not a species in a particular hierarchy. The TaxonConcept entities can have many different classification hierarchies while at any given time the GeoSpecies entities will be one hierarchy which includes species, family, order, class, phyla, kingdom. At this point in time, I don't know if it is best to do this via types i.e. species X has family type Y, order type Z etc. What I have done is create properties inFamily, inOrder etc and assign a hierarchy that way. I also use skis:broaderTransitive and narrower:Transitive between levels of the hierarchy. Here is the RDF of the mosquito Ochlerotatus triseriatus http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz.rdf Here is what it looks like in the uriburner http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/lod.geospecies.org/ses/iuCXz 7) Still to do: A) Update the description web pages B) Clean up the interlinking relationships and vocabulary .. Any suggestions C) Collect more attribute data for each entity D) Add more species E) Redo the family and species pages as RDFa F) Re-implement observation records, I had tried to port these to DarwinCore but it has been changing too much. 8) Bugs A) The RDF pages are more complete and better tested. I don't have a working crawler to test the RDFa pages for vocabulary errors and omissions yet. B) The mapping to DBpedia is incomplete there may still be some entities that map to DBpedia redirects. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions on how the data set could be improved. :-) Respectfully, - Pete --------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries <http://spiders.entomology.wisc.edu/pjd/index.html> Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries@wisc.edu GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://species.geospecies.org/> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 00:52:39 UTC