- 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