OBOE Representation Examples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBOE is an OWL-DL language.  Properly representing the values above as OBOE documents would require representation in a formal OWL syntax, such as XML, N3, or Turtle.  For readability and simplicity, I have referenced OBOE classes and properties using the naked, simple terms 'observation', 'entity', 'measurement', 'characteristic', 'value', 'standard', and 'protocol'.  This is meant to imply that the referenced class would need to be a subclass of the listed OBOE construct, e.g., a subclass of oboe:Entity or oboe:Characteristic.  This was done because many of the Darwin Core classes are not in fact subclasses of OBOE classes, and would need to be associated in order to really be used in this way (and of course, once any given DwC class was a subclass of an OBOE class, there would no longer be a need to explicitly state that it is a subclass in the model). This doesn't necessarily require a change in the DwC classes, but rather is an assertion that they represent OBOE entities and characteristics.

 

In addition, the representation shows the single 'value' for each class directly in the model.  In practical usage, we have created an XML-based annotation syntax that allows a single OBOE model to be applied to many individual records, avoiding the need to repeat the model information for each record.  For example, if Darwin Core records were expressed in a table, each column of the table could be mapped onto the OBOE model using the annotation syntax, and OBOE processors would know how to properly interpret all of the records without repeating the OBOE model for each record in the table.

The current examples show the use of Darwin Core fields that represent taxonomic names.  Most ecological data should really have references to TaxonConcepts, as defined by the Taxonomic Concept Schema (TCS).  Appropriate OWL classes for TCS concepts need to be clarified.