[GeoSciML] Some observations on the CGI vocabs

Steve Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Sat Nov 3 14:25:06 EDT 2012

Since the files at http://resource.geosciml.org/201202/ have been referenced
in a number of places, and may be in use, I think that when I make the
modifications suggested by Simon, there will need to be a new version -
201211, that will get tagged, and linked from cgi-iugs.org/GTWG (unless it's
clear that there would be no incompatibility problems between the rdf with
and without Simon's suggested updates.). I'll put the files from 201202 in
the tag directory as they currently exist, since they have effectively been
tagged by being made public at http://resource.geosciml.org/201202/, and
create a new 201211 tag.


I'm including the current distribution of those who have expressed interest
in GTWG participation so they can get engaged in the issues..





From: Simon.Cox at csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au] 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:09 PM
To: Steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Cc: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Some observations on the CGI vocabs


Hi Steve - prompted by the flurry of email today, I've taken a look at a
couple of the vocabs. 

Good work. I'm seeing some basically minor issues that would make them even
better ... 


1.      For each of the vocabularies, you have used the Ontology URI to
identify the ConceptScheme. This is beyond OWL-DL (or OWL2-RL), so is
generally frowned on by DL-nazis. Mind you, these days I'm relatively
unconvinced that ConceptSchemes provide much utility, so I just use a
placeholder URI, like AlterationType:Scheme. 

2.      OTOH I find that a skos:Collection for each partial URI, ending in
"/", helps navigation, as you can use skos:member to point to all the
initial members. 

3.      Not clear why all the concepts are type=owl:NamedIndividual as well
as skos:Concept?  And is it necessary to include the superclass owl:Thing? 


None of these will have much direct effect on the things that matter (the
concepts, the concept hierarchy, labels and definitions) but will make the
vocabularies more digestible to SemWeb types. 


I've processed two examples where I have done the suggested remediations. 








Simon Cox | Research Scientist
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering 
ARRC, PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102, Australia 
Tel +61 8 6436 8639 | Mob +61 403 302 672
simon.cox at csiro.au | http://csiro.au/people/Simon.Cox



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20121103/6dacc82e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20121103/6dacc82e/attachment.jpeg>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list