- From: Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:25:21 -0600
- To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
There is a need for a mechanism to document the relationship between two
biodiversity-related non-information resources. The Darwin Core
ResourceRelationship terms
(http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#relindex) provide a means to do
that in text-based systems. However, we are working on guidelines for
the use of Darwin Core as RDF. We are considering whether the OA model
might be suitable for describing relationships between
biodiversity-related resources.
For example, an preserved organismal specimen may have been collected
and known to be the offspring of another organism which was also
collected as a separate preserved specimen. We would like to make
statements something like:
<http://guid.mvz.org/relations/23423> a dwc:ResourceRelationship,
oa:Annotation;
oa:hasBody
<http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Mamm:14523>;
oa:hasTarget
<http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Mamm:14524>;
oa:motivatedBy
<http://rs.tdwg.org/relations/offpringOf>;
oa:annotatedAt "2001-09-14";
oa:annotatedBy
<http://guid.mvz.org/agents/James_L_Patton>.
<http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Mamm:14523> a
dcmitype:PhysicalObject, dwctype:PreservedSpecimen.
<http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Mamm:14524> a
dcmitype:PhysicalObject, dwctype:PreservedSpecimen.
There are several issues that come to my mind with this kind of use:
1. According to the OA model description, typically the Body "is the
comment or other descriptive resource" and the Target is a thing that
"the Body is somehow 'about' ". In my example the Body is a dead mammal
which is a non-information resource and is in no way descriptive. The
Body is related to, but not really "about" the Target, although one of
the listed instances of oa:Motivation is oa:linking, and asserting that
one organism is the offspring of another is a sort of linking.
2. I'm a little confused about what one is doing when one creates an
Annotation. I think that creating an annotation is the act of asserting
that there is a connection between the two resources. However, the
description of the oa:Motivation class says that a Motivation instance
is the reason for the creation of the Annotation instance, NOT the
reason for the creation the relationship which the Annotation instance
documents. Are the various items on the list of instances of
oa:Motivation things that we are saying an annotating agent has done?
Or are those things that we are saying that the annotating agent is
asserting has been done? For example, if an agent creates an Annotation
instance with motivation oa:commenting, do we assume that agent has
actually created the comment or that the agent is just documenting that
a comment has been created by someone else? In my example above, the
annotating agent cannot have a role in the creation of the relationship
between the Body and Target. The agent is simply recording the
existence of the relationship.
Using the OA model to document dwc:ResourceRelationship instances is
very appealing to me. I'm just not sure if it is appropriate to use OA
to describe relationships that may not fit the description of
oa:Annotation instances, and with Body resources that are
non-information resources. Perhaps
oa:Annotation rdfs:subClassOf dwc:ResourceRelationship.
and the OA model is narrower than what we need to do with
dwc:ResourceRelationship.
Steve Baskauf
TDWG RDF Task Group co-convener
http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
VU Station B 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 23:19:51 UTC