head	1.3;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.3
date	2009.11.25.03.14.32;	author GarryJolleyRogers;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2009.11.20.02.45.24;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2007.04.30.10.08.11;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118872" format="1.1" version="1.3"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="RDFandBDI.SDD"}%
Lets try to code the following in RDF:

__DESCRIPTIVE Data for Aus bus__
   * Reference 1 says that the color of the central spot of hindwings is usually dark red and rarely orange
   * Reference 2 reports diameter of central spot as (3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5) mm (n=4, from two specimens)
   * Reference 2 says that the central spot of hindwings is probably brown
   * Reference 2 says that diameter of central spot is mean=3.4 mm, s.e.=0.7mm, sample size=30.
   * Specimen 1 has diameter of central spot of hindwing 3.2 mm (only left hindwing present)

__Summary description Aus bus generated by aggregation algorithms:__
   * Hindwings: Central spot usually dark red, brown, or rarely orange, diameter 3.0-3.4 (3.5) mm.

__DESCRIPTIVE Data for Aus cus__
   * Reference 2 says that the central spot of hindwings is mssing

This is the kind of data BDI.SDD_ is designed for.

In BDI.SDD_ we manage this by relying on fixed and agreed structures. Descriptions have a scope, which handles everything from unknown scope to geographic scope to literature of specimen scope. Descriptive data are split into sample data, allowing for correlation between character observation (length and septation observed together) and summary data. Character data are type specific, refer to agreed terminologies and ontologies, and have a modal proposition structure (fundamental proposition plus terminology-driven modifiers plus free-form text annotations).

 In RDF you seem to have no structure, which undoubtedly makes it very flexible. However, whenever I try to think of how to use it, it blows my brain, thinking of the requirements for anonymous and variable deep uri-level or multiple levels of reification.

Without a very advanced and user friendly editor, I believe I would not recognize my own data. I may be wrong, maybe if we try how to do BDI.SDD_ in RDF by those who understand it better, I will see the light.

Any meta-suggestions how to organize the process welcome. Skype conference calls after an initial exchange on the wiki? I suggest organizing a session at TDWG 2007, do you agree?

-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 30 Apr 2007@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685124" format="1.1" reprev="1.2" version="1.2"}%
d18 1
a18 1
This is the kind of data BDI.SDD is designed for.
d20 1
a20 1
In BDI.SDD we manage this by relying on fixed and agreed structures. Descriptions have a scope, which handles everything from unknown scope to geographic scope to literature of specimen scope. Descriptive data are split into sample data, allowing for correlation between character observation (length and septation observed together) and summary data. Character data are type specific, refer to agreed terminologies and ontologies, and have a modal proposition structure (fundamental proposition plus terminology-driven modifiers plus free-form text annotations).
d24 1
a24 1
Without a very advanced and user friendly editor, I believe I would not recognize my own data. I may be wrong, maybe if we try how to do BDI.SDD in RDF by those who understand it better, I will see the light.
d28 1
a28 1
-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 30 Apr 2007
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
a2 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1177927691" format="1.1" reprev="1.1" version="1.1"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="RDFandSDD"}%
d18 1
a18 1
This is the kind of data SDD is designed for.
d20 1
a20 1
In SDD we manage this by relying on fixed and agreed structures. Descriptions have a scope, which handles everything from unknown scope to geographic scope to literature of specimen scope. Descriptive data are split into sample data, allowing for correlation between character observation (length and septation observed together) and summary data. Character data are type specific, refer to agreed terminologies and ontologies, and have a modal proposition structure (fundamental proposition plus terminology-driven modifiers plus free-form text annotations).
d24 1
a24 1
Without a very advanced and user friendly editor, I believe I would not recognize my own data. I may be wrong, maybe if we try how to do SDD in RDF by those who understand it better, I will see the light.
@