Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - [pcplantdb] RDF and Wikis

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bear Kaufmann <bear@ursine-design.com>
  • To: pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [pcplantdb] RDF and Wikis
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:36:11 -0800

Hi all,

I'm back in town. Good to see some discussion.
I'm wondering if anyone got a chance to look at the RDF ontology I put up yet.
At:
http://www.permaculture.info/doc/PIWOntDoc/
Human readable
http://www.permaculture.info/doc/piwontv0.1.rdf-xml.owl
Machine readable

I do like the freedom that a wiki provides. But I see some arguments for adopting RDF descriptions at some point namely:
RDF is machine readable.

Why is that valuable?
Well, if a plant description is basically basically a page of text (ignoring the back end), that description may be very thorough and descriptive, and useful to a reader, but it leaves the plant as a rather separate entity, isolated from the rest.

In the ontology I was working on, at the organism level, I was wanting to have set of properties that at their root were: produces, consumes, traits, requirements, growing areas, etc. There might be subproperties which provide subtler distinctions, like something being the main agent of production (nest building), versus say producing EdibleFruit.

Having this knowledge in a machine readable form allows us to create something that can at least guide in the creation of food webs. For this design we want EdibleFruit, FixedNitrogen, Firewood, and WildlifeHabitat. Given a site's climate, soil, and location [EnvironmentConditions] (which limits the usable set based on organism Requirements), we can then find what groupings would provide those, perhaps gaining group score if they have other mutually beneficial connections, or lowering it for negative interactions.

This provides a richer potential.
But I don't think any of these strategies are mutually exclusive. In fact Rich's description of WikiMedia syntax provides the best of both worlds. If people can enter text using some similar markup [produces:Nectar] (the page is assumed to be the first part of the triple Salvia_egalans:produces:Nectar), those tags can be added to an RDF store, and the syntax can be defined and checked against an RDF Schema (probably the next level up in descriptiveness: OWL). Suggestions could be provided to the user regarding the available tags (which would show what's available in that context, ie: Plant, SoilType, Animal, Construction, etc).
This provides a nice descriptive page, but gives access to something that can model the network of connections/requirements, etc. Without some form of data that's readable in that way, we couldn't accomplish the visualizations that Stephanie was interested in having.

And all this could also be done in a more atomized way as Chad envisions.

Glad your OK Chad. Youch.

Cheers to all,
Bear




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page