edit to the DwC RDF Guide related to language URI recommendation

[Steve Baskauf]

When we were finalizing the RDF Guide, I became aware that there was an
inconsistency between the recommended URI values for dcterms:language
between the RDF Guide and Audubon Core. The guide had recommended MARC
Languages URIs (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/languages.html ), while
Audubon Core had recommended the MARC URIs based on ISO639-2 language
codes (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2 ). I did not have a strong
opinion about which should be used, only that the recommendation should
be the same in both vocabulary documents. After some queries and
research, Bob Morris concluded that it would be better to use the
ISO639-2 URI versions. I have therefore changed the RDF Guide draft to
conform to Bob's recommendation.

Steve

--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences

postal mail address:
PMB 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) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu

[John Wieczorek]

Yay, Bob. Thanks for the attention to detail, Steve.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TDWG RDF/OWL Task Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tdwg-rdf+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bob Morris]

Most of the credit is due to @TerryCatapano, who is a Digital
Librarian at Columbia University and the architect of the TaxPub and
TaxonX XML schemas for the markup of taxonomic literature. I'm
looking over his shoulder during the development of an OWL ontology
aimed at unifying at least the parts of those that are bound by the
nomenclature codes. I expect the documentation will be expressed in
the language http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/eng

--
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390


Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morri...@gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
Harvard University.

[Matt Yoder]

Tangentially related- we released our first draft of the "NOMEN"
ontology. It needs lots of work (and more importantly documentation),
but in the interests of getting the effort out there this is likely a
good place to announce it.

http://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/nomen, and we have a listserv at
google groups https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nomen-discuss.

The general purpose is to encode basic logic behind nomenclatural
codes such that name "statuses" (types/classes) can be consistently
applied among taxonomic workbenches.

Feedback/questions of course more than welcome.

Cheers,
Matt

[Hilmar Lapp]

That's great Matt. Is this ready for external input, and where would you like that to go? Looks like there's no activity on the list, so maybe the issue tracker would be better?

-hilmar

Sent with a tap.

[Matt Yoder]

Hi Hilmar,

We certainly are ready for input, though we are still lacking the
basic documentation in the OWL file that might address early some
questions.

Regarding feedback. If it is a general question I'd use the list. If
it is, very generally, a proposal to modify the ontology itself then
use the tracker. If in doubt use the tracker.

BTW, NOMEN has been very useful to us already in terms of maintaining
internal consistency (using the reasoner we've found a couple of
mistakes), and in terms of being able to greatly simplify our
modelling (e.g. one query to determine whether a users assertions
equate to a name being valid or not).

Looking forward to the feedback,
Matt

[Roderic Page]

Hi Matt,

Might be useful to have a few examples of how to use the ontology for those of us who are doing our best to run away from RDF and OWL ;)

For example, I have lots of articles from the of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature extracted from BHL  and sitting in BioStor (see http://biostor.org/issn/0007-5167 ). It would be useful to have examples of how one could represent the contents of, say Opinion 1830 http://biostor.org/reference/5512 This Opinion changed the spelling of Caeciliidae Kolbe 1880 <urn:lsid:organismnames.com:name:457703> to Caeciliusidae Kolbe 1880<urn:lsid:organismnames.com:name:1069515> to avoid a clash with Caeciliidae Rafinesque 1814<urn:lsid:organismnames.com:name:645872>.

The other question is how does this relate to the TDWG LSID vocabulary? If I have, say, LSID metadata for the above names (which I do), does the NOMEN ontology essentially exist independently (in other words, do I end up assessing that a name is both a TDWG LSID TaxonName and a “ICZN Name”?).

Regards

Rod

Roderic Page

rdm...@gmail.com

Skype:  rdmpage

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage

LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com

ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767