Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
24 lines (16 loc) · 1.72 KB

Survey.md

File metadata and controls

24 lines (16 loc) · 1.72 KB
Raw

Background

There are two goals to this survey, both of which will inform and guide task group activity:

  1. to determine what TDWG (i.e. you) wants the RDF/OWL task group to work on.
  2. to understand the "state of the semantic web in TDWG", by inventorying classes and properties being used; identifiers being used; sparql endpoints and data dumps available; and projects' near-term plans.

Please answer these questions by entering a comment (or multiple comments below). (You'll need to be signed in to your Google account.)

Expectations

1. What would you like to see the group focus on? (Possibilities discussed in New Orleans included guidelines for using RDF in the TDWG arena; a domain model for TDWG; an RDF playpen/sandbox for experimenting with a variety of approaches; responding to Rod Page's challenge; and assisting in the broader interpretation and/or representation of existing standards.)

2. Do you have any current issues that you hope this new group will help solve?

Current Practices

3. Are you currently using, or do you have immediate plans to use RDF? If yes, can you give a brief description of the data being served, and/or provide links to:

  • sources of data (data dumps, SPARQL endpoints, etc.),
  • design documents or project proposals,
  • a bubble diagram (or even just a list) of the classes and properties you are using (with namespaces, of course),
  • a list of classes and properties that you need but that are not readily available,
  • anything elses that would shed light on what you're up to?

4. What identifiers are you using? (Includes taxa, people, institutions, protected areas, etc.)