Submissions:SpeciesNames
From Odp
If you are a member of quality committee please visit the
If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can: specify if this revision takes in account any of the review(s) In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal Current revision ID: 9128 |
Graphical representation
Diagram
General description
Name: | SpeciesNames |
---|---|
Submitted by: | AldoGangemi |
Also Known As: | |
Intent: | To express the terminological variants and the conceptual similarity that can be sources of confusion between species. |
Domains: | |
Competency Questions: |
|
Solution description: | -- |
Reusable OWL Building Block: | http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/fsdas/speciesnames.owl (730) |
Consequences: | Terminological and conceptual similarity between species can be encoded byusing the three properties in this pattern. |
Scenarios: | give me the species containing local name 'oyster'; give me the synonyms and localnames for species 'Ostrica gigas'; give me the species with which species 'Ostrica gigas' can be confused |
Known Uses: | |
Web References: | |
Other References: | |
Examples (OWL files): | |
Extracted From: | |
Reengineered From: | |
Has Components: | |
Specialization Of: | |
Related CPs: |
Elements
The SpeciesNames 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).
Additional information
(type): http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology
(imports): http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/schemas/cpannotationschema.owl
(versionInfo): 1.0
Scenarios
No scenario is added to this Content OP.
Reviews
There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 9128) takes in account the reviews: none
Other info at evaluation tab
Modeling issues
There is no Modeling issue related to this proposal.
References