EnricoDaga (Talk | contribs) m (Text replace - '{{Reviews about me}}' to '{{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}}') |
EnricoDaga (Talk | contribs) m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Content_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} | {{Content_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} | ||
+ | {{Graphical representation header}} | ||
{{Graphical representation | {{Graphical representation | ||
|ImageName=Speciesconservation.jpg | |ImageName=Speciesconservation.jpg | ||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
|Intent=This pattern intend to represent a description of the conservation status of aquatic species. | |Intent=This pattern intend to represent a description of the conservation status of aquatic species. | ||
|CompetencyQuestion=What is the conservation status of this species? What are the species with a specific conservation status? What species' conservation status contain a specific string? | |CompetencyQuestion=What is the conservation status of this species? What are the species with a specific conservation status? What species' conservation status contain a specific string? | ||
+ | |ContentODPDescription=-- | ||
|ReusableOWLBuildingBlock=http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/fsdas/speciesconservation.owl, | |ReusableOWLBuildingBlock=http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/fsdas/speciesconservation.owl, | ||
|Consequences=The conservation status is simply represented as a string, there are no restrictions on how to express the status, thereby an additional convention on how to express this in natural language could be needed if a uniform naming of status levels is desired. | |Consequences=The conservation status is simply represented as a string, there are no restrictions on how to express the status, thereby an additional convention on how to express this in natural language could be needed if a uniform naming of status levels is desired. | ||
Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
|HasElement=hasConservationStatus | |HasElement=hasConservationStatus | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{Additional information header}} | ||
(type): http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology | (type): http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology | ||
{{Scenarios about me}} | {{Scenarios about me}} | ||
− | {{Reviews about me}}{{Modeling issues about me}} | + | {{Reviews about me}} |
+ | {{Modeling issues about me}} | ||
+ | {{My references}} |
Diagram
Name: | SpeciesConservation |
---|---|
Submitted by: | EvaBlomqvist |
Also Known As: | |
Intent: | This pattern intend to represent a description of the conservation status of aquatic species. |
Domains: | |
Competency Questions: | |
Solution description: | -- |
Reusable OWL Building Block: | 1 (399) |
Consequences: | The conservation status is simply represented as a string, there are no restrictions on how to express the status, thereby an additional convention on how to express this in natural language could be needed if a uniform naming of status levels is desired. |
Scenarios: | Give me the species for which conservation status contains 'Vulnerable'; Give me the species for which conservation status is 'vulnerable'; Give me the conservation status for species 'Ostrica gigas |
Known Uses: | |
Web References: | |
Other References: | |
Examples (OWL files): | |
Extracted From: | |
Reengineered From: | |
Has Components: | |
Specialization Of: | |
Related CPs: |
The SpeciesConservation Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:
Mappable to fi:Species, fi:SpeciesRef, fi:SpeciesFeature, etc.
It has related axioms from FIGIS Schema that are included in the classes linked to the fi:Species class, such as fi:SpeciesRef (holding association with fi:AqResRef, which holds association with fi:WaterAreaRef).
(type): http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
This revision (revision ID 9125) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab