[obs] Joining DwC, OBOE, PO and PATO

[Hilmar Lapp]

On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Matt Jones wrote:

> Would PATO lose anything by formally defining a Quality as an  
> instance of oboe:Characteristic and with a particular oboe:Value  
> bound to it?


It's maybe worth keeping in mind that in the distributed nature of the  
Semantic Web paradigm anybody could make that assertion, i.e.,  
PATO:quality rdfs:subClassOf oboe:Characteristic (assuming that you  
did in fact not mean instance, but subclass?). Hence, if using PATO  
terms within OBOE-compliant data would require that, there's nothing  
that would stop you from simply including the assertion in your  
ontology.

Conversely, adding that to PATO itself would probably generate a drawn  
out philosophical discussion as to how compatible that would be with  
BFO ... (and I don't think OBOE is easily reconcilable with BFO)

	-hilmar
-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
===========================================================



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/obs/attachments/20101102/413b6d88/attachment.html>