- From: joel sachs <jsachs@csee.umbc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 22:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>
- cc: public-lod@w3.org, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
oops - if species concepts are classes, then I guess I should replace each occurence of owl:sameAs (below), with owl:equivalentClass ... On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, joel sachs wrote: > Pete, > > I notice that you use skos:closeMatch (instead of owl:sameAs) to assert near > equivalence amongst species concepts. E.g., > > <owl:Class rdf:about="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species"> > <skos:closeMatch > rdf:resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monarch_(butterfly)"/> > > In an area as tricky as species concepts, I agree that skos:closeMatch has > advantages over owl:sameAs. (For example, closeMatch is not transitive, which > makes it harder for errors to propagate.) > > You then make a series of foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf statements, such as > > <owl:Class rdf:about="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species"> > <foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf > rdf:resource="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_(butterfly)"/> > > But foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf is an inverse functional property. Since I assume > you agree with the assertion (from dbpedia) that > > <rdf:Description > rdf:about="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_(butterfly)"> > <foaf:primaryTopic > rdf:resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monarch_(butterfly)"/> > > you are, in fact, asserting that your Monarch Butterfly and dbpedia's Monarch > Butterfly are owl:sameAs each other. (Is there a reason you need > foaf:primaryTopic, instead of, say, dc:subject?) > > I look forward to using this dataset - > Regards, > Joel. > > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Peter DeVries wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I am working on a new model for species concepts at TaxonConcept.org. >> >> These are an extension of my work on GeoSpecies, and are also designed to >> investigate mapping names to concepts as part of the Global Names >> Initiative<http://gni.globalnames.org/> >> . >> >> The main difference between these and GeoSpecies are that each species >> concept is a class. >> >> This is to address some users who feel that species are best modeled as a >> class. >> >> Other groups would like species modeled as an instance. >> >> This is mainly those groups that are dealing with large numbers of species >> occurrence records. >> >> To deal with these different needs I have come up with the following >> solution. >> >> Each species concept has related "Tags" that are instances. >> >> For example >> >> In this RDF there is a description of the following species concept >> >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp.rdf >> >> there is a description of the following species concept >> >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species >> URIBurner < >> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp%01Species >>> >> >> <txn:speciesConceptHasSpeciesTopicTag rdf:resource=" >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Topic"/> >> >> <txn:speciesConceptHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag rdf:resource=" >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Occurrence"/> >> >> <txn:speciesConceptHasSpeciesIndividualTag rdf:resource=" >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Individual"/> >> >> I created the #Topic tag because I originally was thinking about using that >> to label those resources that have that species as a topic. >> >> Some think this may be unnecessary, but I have left it in for now while I >> think about it. >> >> The "mCcSp#Occurrence" tag is to indicate that the entity is an occurrence >> of that species. >> >> These are instances of the class txn:SpeciesOccurrenceTag, which allows >> someone to partition the data set into only the information that is about >> species occurrence records. >> >> The "mCcSp#Individual" tag is to represent individuals of that species. >> >> Another feature of the species concept RDF is that it maps the species >> concept to related entities on the LOD and as foreign keys in other data >> sets. >> >> The data set is available via my semantic site map at: >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/sitemap.xml.gz >> >> And is currently live on the LOD. A SPARQL Endpoint is being setup. >> >> The data set contains about 86,000 species concepts. >> >> ** We have notice that there maybe some problems with the Fungi section, so >> I would avoid those for the time being. ** >> >> I have created a smaller example RDF dump file at: >> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept_subset.rdf.gz >> >> This contains a combination of species concepts and related linked data >> including Image galleries and a small sample of occurrence records. >> >> Here are some examples as viewed through the Sigma service. >> >> Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus < >> http://sig.ma/search?pid=5d903f44eb963350b77074b7d9e80ff9 > >> >> Eastern Tree Hole Mosquito Ochlerotatus triseriatus < >> http://sig.ma/search?pid=5d903f44eb963350b77074b7d9e80ff9 > >> >> Additional Examples can be found at: >> >> http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-taxa/ >> >> I also have some example SPARQL Queries that work on the LOD. >> >> http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/ >> >> I would appreciate feedback on these models and any suggestions for how >> they >> could be improved. :-) >> >> Thank you for your time and consideration. >> >> - Pete >> >> Ontology: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl >> >> Ontology Doc: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/doc/index.html >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 <http://about.geospecies.org/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >
Received on Saturday, 5 June 2010 02:35:54 UTC