consider adding 'Animal' terminology

[profumairali]

what about the "animals" for pet animals online buy them look out their pictures and get advice about their well care as well for their food ,,,,

[mfhepp]

We could consider adding an "Animal" subtype of Thing, assuming (which is arguable) that an animal is not a person. With multi-typed entities, this would cover a lot of use-cases, including offers for animals (for money and for free - e.g. AnimalShelter offers).

[profumairali]

we need to add it as the results of google search but having no vocabulary of this entity so i think it should be as results in the picture attached.

[GeoffreyEmery]

would you put it under pet under thing? shouldn't it follow a scientific approach so ew dont have to do something for reptile

[linikujp]

NCBITaxon is the scientific terminology for species.
It has the OWL and RDF version.
For each specie, there are general common name available.
http://wiki.obofoundry.org/wiki/index.php/NCBITaxon:Main_Page
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9615 [ for dog ]
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606 [for human]

In the NCBITaxon version loaded on Ontobee(http://www.ontobee.org):
The http://www.geneontology.org/formats/oboInOwl#hasExactSynonym was used to link the scientific name with the common name

[mfhepp]

Thanks for the link. Such specific species types can be used with schema.org via schema:additionalType or Multi-Typed Entitities (MTEs). Having a simple "Animal" type below "Thing" should do the trick.

[webmaven]

@mfhepp: presumably, the same approach would also work with a 'Plant' type below 'Thing' (and a 'Cultivar' type below that)?

[rhewitt22]

My use case is a species profile for a Federal conservation agency website (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Not a pet, could be anything from an insect, to moss, to a manatee, etc.

[jaygray0919]

@rhewitt22
ITIS handles this well: http://www.itis.gov/

Greater detail is defined by US HHS NIH NCBI TAXON. NCBI TAXON has RDF URIs.

[MichaelAndrews-RM]

I would like to revive this proposal to have Types created for Animal and Plant entities. It seems like this is a big gap in the vocabulary currently.

Both animals and plants can be domesticated, meaning that they can be products. So the ability to specify properties about animals and plants will be useful to both merchants and content publishers.

Both Animal and Plant entity types can draw on existing properties such as height, weight, and color.

They also share common features associated with living Things, so some new properties can be used by both types.

The Animal type could potentially be broken into subtypes of Pet and Livestock if additional properties are necessary.

Both types can also use a new Type @Care for domesticated animals/plants. I would recommend not including properties in the @Care if they can apply to non-domesticated instances. All animals have a diet, whether or not they require care.

Animal types could have the following properties:

• diet
• diseases
• lifespan
• @Care
  • feeding
  • grooming
  • recommendedVaccinations
• habitat
• distribution
• commercialUses

The Plant type could potentially be broken into subtypes of HousePlant, OrnamentalPlant, AgriculturalPlant, and possibly Fruit.

Plant types could have the following properties:

• @Care
  • lighting
  • water
  • temperature
  • humidity
  • container
• pests
• habitat
• soil
• commericalUses
• cultivation
• propagation (e.g. cutting, seed, bulb)
• distribution
• leaves
• flowers
• fruit or @Fruit (for human consumable fruits that may require more specification)
• lifespan
• bloomingSeason
• harvestSeason

[thadguidry]

@MichaelAndrews-RM I'd like to see those subtypes of Pet and Livestock where @Care would be available, and not adding @Care to Animal and Plant. "distribution" is a potential overlap with "habitat" and the naming is too generic, I think. "soil", "leaves", etc.... try to avoid overly simple generic naming, remember that a property can only appear once in Schema.org even across all extensions, so its best to elaborate on property names... try "soilRequirements" and "leafCount", names like that.

[vholland]

+1 to adding these types.

I would like us to be clear in our documentation that these are species rather than individuals. So, http://schema.org/Animal is for describing Western Lowland Gorillas and we would have a different type for Koko.

Perhaps this suggest naming the types AnimalSpecies and PlantSpecies.

[jaygray0919]

IMHO you are about to enter the twilight zone.

Most of the above have been carefully adjudicated in other ontologies. For example, is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Why re-invent the Plant Ontology? Are you going to define soil? Which soil terms to use - USDA or UN FAO? Is Python an exotic pet (or a computer language) or an invasiveSpecies. To continue might be considered rude, so I'll summarize by suggesting: use specialized vocabularies as defined by recognized authorities.

I realize there's been an effort to standardize a medical vocabulary in schema (https://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html). But these terms (all or most) have a sameAs equivalents from authorities cited on the page.

@mfhepp and others are survivors from similar wars - suggest we follow their advice.

[thadguidry]

@jaygray0919 we reinvent in order to simplify. Other vocabularies are nice and specialized and that's great, and we can align with them quite easily... but we have a greater need to give developers EASIER ways to address their needs, rather than them choosing vocab X or vocab Y to get their AnimalSpecies type. Remember Schema.org mission...is not to actually be specialized, but instead more generic to spread the love of Linked Data and Structured Data. "some data is better than no data"

Again, there are really good reasons for reinventing and pulling in useful Types and Properties into Schema.org....to allow developers who might never use structured data because the specialized vocabs make their head spin....and instead provide them an easier path through Schema.org. Once they need further specialization, sure, they can extend with other vocabs as they reach further into the Long Tail domains.

[jaygray0919]

then my advice is to use broad terms from the specialized vocabs with an explicit sameAs qualifier. but you're gonna have big problems using common names with many synonyms. and if you fall back to using ITIS or NCBI scientific names, to minimize or mitigate synonyms, you're in another world of hurt with taxonomists. my bottom line here is: you're heading down a slippery slope with few benefits and many liabilities.

[MichaelAndrews-RM]

@thadguidry "distribution" refers to geography, such as Northeast India. It could be renamed to "geographicDistribution". "habitat" refers to ecosystem, such as marshlands, grasslands, etc.

For plants, "distribution" can refer more specifically to a climatic growing zone, relating to frosts, etc.

I do think @Care has a role to play for Plant entities. Lots of content talks about caring for house plants. We may need to sub-type it, since there is little overlap between Plant care and Animal Care. I think @Care could be a strong signal indicating the kind of data available, and could even link to HowTo entities. It could be a very flexible entity type, applicable to clothes care, etc.

Concerning 'soil', 'leaves', etc. would need to define how to use these. I've borrowed them from existing website descriptions of plants. We can of course get more specific "leafShape", "leafSize", etc. but it may start to get too much. Maybe "leafFeatures" will be generic enough. "soilRequirements" sounds like a good property name.

@jaygray0919 My goal is to have a lightweight description that would be intelligible to a bright and motivated 11 year old. This won't satisfy a PhD in biology, but we might able to cross-reference other IDs in other vocabularies for those who want to dig deeper.

[jaygray0919]

Martin @mfhepp do you want to weigh in here?

[thadguidry]

@MichaelAndrews-RM agreed on @Care , remember that Humans are Animals also and need care, especially children and elderly...but I didn't say that :) and not going there, but you can.

In general, I like where this is going, providing some high level types so that at least Educators, Students, Pet Owners and Plant Owners, etc. can begin using these useful Types. And thanks @MichaelAndrews-RM for driving this issue further, it will help the world.

@jaygray0919 OK, I'm game... then tell me how I do that right now...imagine my 16 year old daughter wants to provide structured data on her school website about their class project on Whales... currently, can you give her a structured data snippet that describes a Whale with some properties ?

[rvguha]

Before we go much further ... This is indeed a gap in Schema.org, but what works in Schema.org are additions when there is a clearly defined use case. Who is going to produce this data and who is going to consume it to create what application? guha

[thadguidry]

@rvguha Many of the apps are already built, like all these mobile ones ... https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/toolkit/monitoringsmart.shtml
I have also reached out to Dave Whitinger with https://Garden.org and his database admins to bring his thoughts into this issue as well. Collecting care information from different global perspectives would be one use case, which some of the applications and online data do in fact try to surface, but the data is not in one schema or collective. Exposing Schema.org just for that, could allow much more interoperability...just as we are trying to do with IoT.schema.org

[jaygray0919]

IMHO this thread is conflating the process of building a controlled vocabulary and its associated grammar with tags. Some of the terms above are tags that are derived from crowdsourcing (frequency of term use on multiple web sites). Others are terms that have been defined by a controlled vocabulary (previously cited).

If schema.org wants to import the class hierarchy of common terms from an Authority, then that makes sense (so long as sameAs is used to cite the Authority). Here is an Authority that could be "purloined" - https://agclass.nal.usda.gov/ and has terms mentioned in this thread.

Note that it is only a class hierarchy. Deep in the RDF one can find properties (synonyms). And it is available in Spanish and would server as an example of inLanguage for the planned @CreativeWork

Other relationships are VERY difficult to formulate-on-the-fly. A good example is Horse Feathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Feathers).

We can formulate a relationship/property class for the partOf\hasPart an animal with the label "feathers". We can formulate a object class hierarchy of animals that includes "Horse."

But how are you going to specify a legitimate fact (Chicken hasPart feathers) from a fake fact (Horse hasPart feathers)?

This thread is replete with massive problems like Horse Feathers.

If folks perceive a gap in schema.org, start by using Wikidata to fill the gap. At least then you can build on classes and predicates that have been adjudicated.

And where is @mfhepp Martin Hepp? We shouldn't do anything here without his input.

[thadguidry]

@jaygray0919 you are worrying too much about pandora's box. really ? Horse Feathers ? really ? No one said anything about Non-Plants or Non-Animals on this thread. Please stay on topic, thanks.

Update: Dave Whitinger just emailed me back from Garden.org and will be syncing up with a few of us in private forum to keep this issue toned down.

Hi Thad,

I'm interested in this. Not exactly sure what we can do but we
run the largest database of plants online and I think this sounds
like a useful thing for us to cooperate with.

Dave

[jaygray0919]

@thadguidry Thad - this thread specifically identifies hasPart and partOf issues so I feel your sarcasm is either mis-placed or mis-informed. But I'll stand down.

[thadguidry]

@jaygray0919 no problem sir/ma'am :-) Let's just mutually help Roy @rhewitt22 with US Fish and Wildlife further up in this issue who does cool things with Plants on their site, as well as folks like Dave Whitinger with Garden.org to be able to talk about the same thing...then our job here is done.

[vholland]

Taking a step back, I think there is a role for schema.org while acknowledging there are more precise ontologies for a given domain like animals. Is schema.org/CreativeWork and its subtypes as expressive as BIBFRAME or MODS? No. Librarians and archivists go into way more detail that schema.org can express. But, what exists in schema.org is useful for a lot of use cases.

I think the same model can apply here. Any new types ideally align with the correct domain ontology, but we don't have to go into every detail to be able to say Koko was a gorilla and gorillas live to be about 50 years old and are endangered.

[danbri]

I came here to say "who is going to use this" (consumer rather than publish it), but it seems that's been done.

There is a project in the lifesciences world, BioSchemas, which might be worth thinking about here.

When I first met them I said something like "sounds interesting but don't just cook up a big pile of schemas and then complain in a couple of years that you can't see any benefits in Google search results". A field as big as lifesciences has the resources to both publish and consume, and it seems they have taken that direction. The site at http://bioschemas.org/specifications/ lists their domain-specific overlay on top of generic schema.org, they've proposed things from time to time that ended up in Schema.org (like tweaks around Dataset), but they are also working on being users of the data and supporting validation tools etc themselves too, http://bioschemas.org/software/ - this is much to be commended.

@AlasdairGray may have more to add here on the animal-related schema specifics, I know there was some friction a while back when some people perceived bioschemas as going too deep into territory that was already rich with detailed domain-specific ontologies (Proteins etc.). My sense was that Bioschemas was trying to find a layer of additional specificity beyond what we have in schema.org which a) can help with practical Web discovery apps b) (maybe?) helps bridge to more scientific/scholarly ontologies.

[jaygray0919]

@vholland is a voice of reason. On our side, we are VERY familiar with the animal and plant "space." The two best Authorities with which schema.org could collaborate are the USDA National Agricultural Library Thesaurus and UN FAO Agrovoc. Both have RDF implementations and hierarchies of "common terms" with a sameAs scientific term. Each occupies a space comparable to BIBFRAME and MODS.

Having said that, the hasPart/isPartOf issues above (leaves, flower, fruit) are difficult to implement. One can compose some JSON-LD using the schema @prefix but that doesn't mean that the Google Structured Data Testing tool understands what has been composed.

That is the difference between a controlled vocabulary and a grammar. GSDTT enforces the grammar - in effect saying - I understand what you are publishing. My humorous example of Horse Feathers was simply to make the point: a harvester must understand what is being asserted/published.

Class hierarchies are a good starting point, but it's the predicates (object properties) that enable axioms and statements. And that, to use another metaphor, is a can of worms.

[danbri]

As for hasPart, I remain as ever skeptical that a theory of part-whole composition belongs in schema.org. Our current hasPart is basically for document-like things.

As I typed my last comment, @jaygray0919 's comment appears. I agree (both that @vholland is a voice of reason) but also that leaning on the agricultural thesaurus efforts would be productive. There is an initiative called GACS (pronounced "GAX"), that integrates several of the major efforts. Most of these things are available in some flavour of SKOS RDF which should integrate with schema.org nicely.

I don't expect Google SDTT to distinguish between horse feathers and dinosaur feathers anytime soon, but having this data in a more thesaurus-oriented representation is a perfectly respectable way to sidestep the difficulties of ontologizing it...

[MichaelAndrews-RM]

@vholland I agree that the Type should refer to species rather than to instances of species. To avoid the ambiguity of "name" I would recommend something like:

speciesCommonName
speciesScientificName

For domesticated animals (FarmAnimals and PetAnimals) could have a property of

breedName

Domesticated Plants (flowers or FoodPlant ) could have a property of

varietyName

[MichaelAndrews-RM]

I've done a quick cross-referencing of my list of properties, which are based on common ones I noticed in published web content, with the Agrovoc terms. I find that they match quite closely. The only major difference I find is that the Agrovac (AIMS) uses taxonomy terms that could be entities or properties, rather than being properties specifically. Because of the depth of Agrovac, I think it would be helpful to have dedicated schema.org properties for those that are most frequently used.

key

• myOrginalPropertyName = aimsURI --> "AIMS term": "AIMS or USDA definition"

Animal and Plant Types

• speciesCommonName ~ "alternative term" (no URI)
• speciesScientificName = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7280 --> “species”

Animal Types

• breed = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1081 --> “breeds (animals)”

• diet = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2261 --> “diet”: “Kind and quantity of feed or food normally prescribed for an animal”

• diseases = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_49879 --> “diseases”
  or http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_426 --> “animal diseases”

• lifespan = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_4428 --> “longevity”

• @care

  • feeding = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2838 --> “feeding”
  • grooming = (no equivalent term)
  • recommendedVaccinations ~ http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_15123 --> “vaccination”

• habitat = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_3456 --> “habitats”

• commercialUses ~~ http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8117 --> “uses”

Plant types

• varietyName = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1423211760123 --> “variety (taxa)”

• @care

  • lighting =
    http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_25196 --> “light requirements”
  • water = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8309 --> “water”
    or http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8332 --> “watering”
  • temperature = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7657 --> “temperature”
  • humidity = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_3689 --> “humidity”
  • container = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_5958 --> “plant containers”

• pests = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_5741 --> "pests"

• habitat = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_3456 --> “habitats”

• soil = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7156 --> “soil”

• commericalUses ~~ http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8117 --> “uses”

• cultivation = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2018 --> "cultivation"

• propagation (e.g. cutting, seed, bulb) = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_6224 --> “propagation materials”: “A plant part such as a bud, tuber, root, or shoot used to reproduce (propagate) an individual plant vegetatively.”

• distribution = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_5083 --> “geographical distribution”

• leaves = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_4243 --> “leaves”

• flowers = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2993 --> “flowers”

• fruit or @fruit (for human consumable fruits that may require more specification) = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_3119 --> "fruit"

• lifespan = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_4428 --> “longevity”

• bloomingSeason = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2992 --> "flowering" : 'The time at which a flower comes into full bloom'

• harvestSeason = http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_29464 --> “harvesting date”

[danbri]

Thanks for the detailed comparison, @MichaelAndrews-RM

Pinging @tombaker - Tom do you know of any efforts around GACS that could help bridge to a more Schema.org-ish level of detail? (and be articulated as types/properties rather than thesaurus/skos-style).

[AlasdairGray]

As @danbri mentioned, in Bioschemas we have the tension between multiple existing domain specific ontologies and how to use Schema.org. Our approach has been very much of trying to link to the appropriate term in the domain specific ontology rather than reinvent within Schema.org.

The markup of a biological sample according to our Sample profile over schema.org makes extensive use of additionalProperty and PropertyValue to link from the web resource being described to the ontology term.

See the Biosamples page for an example of a live deployment of this. This can be viewed in the Google SDTT at this link.

[danbri]

Via @Aaranged, #652 (comment)

Ozymandias, "a biodiversity knowledge graph of Australian taxa and taxonomic publications", says that "the knowledge graph is implemented as a triple store where the data has been represented using a small number of vocabularies (mostly schema.org with some terms borrowed from TAXREF-LD and the TDWG LSID vocabularies)"

See also their github repo especially vocab/model overview in README. Nice work, @rdmpage :)

[rdmpage]

Thanks @danbri, both for the "nice work" comment, and for bringing this thread to my attention.

[devictoribero]

Any update on this @danbri?

I like what @MichaelAndrews-RM proposes. I would take into consideration that plants might have more than one common name which we based on what criteria should we use one or the other ones?

For example, some varieties have many common names. Ceropegia Woodii is also known as string of hearts, chain of hearts, hearts entangled, rosary vine, sweetheart vine..

[AlasdairGray]

This is something that we have been developing in the Bioschemas community. We have developed a Schema.org proposal for a Taxon type, and associated usage profile.

We currently have an open issue for the modelling of a TaxonName.

[zoldello]

Would it be a good idea to extend this to be "Specimen". That would cover humans, non-human animal, insect, trees, flowers and other living things.

[AlasdairGray]

Taxon can be used for any type of living thing; human, animal, insect, tree, flower or so on. In fact we have deployment of it at the National Museum of Natural History of Paris, for example Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758 and the Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium are working on marking up their herbarium.

Specimen is typically used to indicate a sample in a scientific study. For this purpose we have developed the Sample and BioSample types. A BioSample can be linked to a Taxon term using the taxonomicRange property.

[github-actions]

This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.

[simgooder]

Any way we could get an update on this?

I have a live use-case (in a field of very large use-cases) and would love to see some support for this!

[danbri]

Can you say more about the use-case? Would you be consuming the data and making things with it?

…

On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 16:22, Simon ***@***.***> wrote: Any way we could get an update on this? I have a live use-case (in a field of very large use-cases) and would love to see some support for this! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGO3FYS2Q3PX4PQGOJTTE5VEPANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> .

[simgooder]

I'm developing a plant database, using existing plant databases as a base. You can see an example of a plant profile for the domestic apple here.

We would be both consuming and making things with it. We're in touch with a few more plant databases (some also now defunct) and working on interoperability. We have a rudimentary API now too, and there has been more interest from other groups using this data to build with.

We use Wikipedia and a few other (Creative Commons licensed) resources to pull from and build on. Our database is also open - and any member can contribute data.

Other larger use-cases:

• Plants for a Future
• Kew Plant Database
• West Coast Seeds

[chrisspradling1980]

Permanent superficiality family member; trainer and or (using the homeland as domicile commonwealth partner) unity indexer for environment

…

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 12:11 PM Simon ***@***.***> wrote: I'm developing a plant database, using existing plant databases as a base. You can see an example of a plant profile for the domestic apple here <https://permapeople.org/plants/malus-domestica-apple-1>. We would be both consuming and making things with it. We're in touch with a few more plant databases (some also now defunct) and working on interoperability. We have a rudimentary API now too, and there has been more interest from other groups using this data to build with. We use Wikipedia and a few other (Creative Commons licensed) resources to pull from and build on. Our database is also open - and any member can contribute data. Other larger use-cases: - Plants for a Future <https://pfaf.org/user/Default.aspx> - Kew Plant Database <https://www.kew.org/science/collections-and-resources/data-and-digital> - West Coast Seeds <https://www.westcoastseeds.com/collections/cucumber-seeds/products/artist-gherkin> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFVNUQ7WM5KRBKIXF4JYODTE525DANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> .

[chrisspradling1980]

One moment On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 11:57 AM Dan Brickley ***@***.***> wrote:

…

Can you say more about the use-case? Would you be consuming the data and making things with it? On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 16:22, Simon ***@***.***> wrote: > Any way we could get an update on this? > > I have a live use-case (in a field of very large use-cases) and would love > to see some support for this! > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > < #746 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGO3FYS2Q3PX4PQGOJTTE5VEPANCNFSM4BOCSEJA > > . > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFVNUSV3BAL5ZWTMB2QUTLTE5ZGPANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> .

[chrisspradling1980]

You mean the animal sniffer from open source licensing has a UI? Forgive me of my lack of regard syntax per rules. I'm in need to build the same thing you offer info towards. I recently downloaded an app called ANT control and log by color on reception. Good deeds and purposeful negative insistence as long as log on is enabled and multiple ui type investing with trust. No trust, zero trust because the foundation entails basic of the basics would calm things trying to catch the back for education teachings. Respectfully, Christopher M. Spradling

…

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 11:22 AM Simon ***@***.***> wrote: Any way we could get an update on this? I have a live use-case (in a field of very large use-cases) and would love to see some support for this! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFVNUSWVMMCEUHG2PXUD73TE5VFFANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> .

[Tombre]

Hey everyone, we have a use case for animal schema at my place of work: PetRescue. We operate a pet adoption platform in Australia connecting the public to rescue animals looking for adoption.

Having a defined schema object for an "animal" or even "pet" would be a huge win for us as it would allow us to add additional context to our pet listings the general public and also for search engines to better support rescue pet searches.

Here is an example listing currently available in our system

We have a lot of contextual data already around an animal such as Breed and Species so its great to hear that mentioned in this conversation already.

Would love to help in any way to make this happen.

[mcglabs]

Where are we at w/ this? Does anybody just want to get together and propose an extension and what are the blockers? Seems pretty straightforward:

Type: Thing>Animal or Thing>Species
breed: Taxon or Text
givenName: Text
type: Enumeration
birthDate: Date or Text
owner: Person or Organization
ownershipStatus: Enumeration

Feel free to add and let's get this published. I can take lead if so desired 🙌

Guess we might need to create a new type like: Thing>Entity

[danbri]

We experimentally added some terms proposed by the bioschemas project recently, including https://schema.org/Taxon - it would be good to focus around that

…

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 04:31, mcglabs ***@***.***> wrote: Where are we at w/ this? Does anybody just want to get together and propose an extension and what are we waiting for? Seems pretty straightforward: *Type: Animal* breed: Taxon <https://schema.org/Taxon> or Text givenName: Text type: Enumeration birthDate: Date or Text owner: Person or Organization ownerShipStatus: Enumeration Feel free to add and let's get this published. I can take lead if so desired 🙌 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGJXOQBBPJFG37RGDZTUGT4QFANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> .

[AlasdairGray]

Within Bioschemas, we are discussing separating out Taxon from the name that it has been assigned (this is due to the names changing over time). Details of the discussion can be found in Bioschemas issue 309.

@frmichel has been leading the work in the Bioschemas Community on this.

[mcglabs]

Happy to work around that type. But how would one associate ownership and other qualities to a Taxon?

Seemingly, a use case exists to create an entity, like Person, for ownable Animals (see: pet adoption site). Having ownershipStatus (Enumeration: Adoptable), givenName (Text: Teddy), breed (Taxon or Text: Shih Tzu Mix), and animalType (Enumeration: Dog).

Glad to follow-up with @frmichel. Seems they would be more interested in classification.

[chrisspradling1980]

Would it also be difficult under this type to add a Schema technology term for the #AnimalSniffer Open Source license and hardware utility for Python? This "app" has recently become infected by a Django ClickJacker sooo. My only problem is the alarms which are triggered in most Alarm and surveillance systems on the building? God bless you, Christopher

…

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 3:05 AM mcglabs ***@***.***> wrote: Happy to work around that type. But how would one associate ownership and other qualities to a Taxon? Seemingly, a use case exists to create an entity, like Person, for *owned Animals* -- see: pet adoption site <https://www.petrescue.com.au/listings/865134>. Glad to follow-up with @frmichel <https://github.com/frmichel>. Seems they would be more interested in classification. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#746 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFVNUSAGDIJP6DFWCU2YTLUG2FM7ANCNFSM4BOCSEJA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[mcglabs]

Would it also be difficult under this type to add a Schema technology term for the #AnimalSniffer Open Source license and hardware utility for Python? This "app" has recently become infected by a Django ClickJacker sooo. My only problem is the alarms which are triggered in most Alarm and surveillance systems on the building? God bless you, Christopher

This is off-topic, @chrisspradling1980. Please refrain, and advise deleting your comment☮️

[danbri]

@chrisspradling1980 - @mcglabs is correct, your contributions here recently have been largely unintelligible - please find somewhere else to type.

[frmichel]

Hi @mcglabs, @AlasdairGray, @danbri, so sorry for missing this discussion.

a use case exists to create an entity, like Person, for ownable Animals (see: pet adoption site). Having ownershipStatus (Enumeration: Adoptable), givenName (Text: Teddy), breed (Taxon or Text: Shih Tzu Mix), and animalType (Enumeration: Dog).

There are 2 options here:

1. Describe an animal as an instance of a Taxon.
2. As you suggest @mcglabs, have a type Animal or Pet and (optionally ?) link to a taxon with e.g. a breed property.

Within Bioschemas, the Taxon type is complemented by a Taxon profile that requires at least the accepted scientific name (schema:name), a taxonomic rank (schema:taxonomiRank) and the profile (dct:conformsTo). It also recommends using Darwin Core's property vernacularName that could replace the animalType property that you suggest.

Nevertheless, it might be sort of overkill to use the Taxon profile to describe a pet. The rationale of this type is to help biology/biodiversity webpages denote species with their scientific names, taxonomic ranks and so on. So saying that my dog belongs to taxon Canis familiaris whose taxonomic rank is species is probably too much detail. Besides, we still need a term to name the breed, and there is no such property so far in Taxon.

You could still use the Taxon type without complying with Bioschemas's Taxon profile. But then, this questions whether using the Taxon type is relevant if none of the rank, scientific names, parent and child taxa etc. are denoted.

We are typically in a situation where we have two domains, pets and taxonomy, that are somehow related, but with quite a gap wrt. usages. Maybe @danbri you've have already dealt with such discrepancies in other communities?

In the end I'm afraid I'm providing more questions than answers here.

Franck.

[zacharymichaelmoore]

Any updates? I can help.

My approach avoids biological classification and instead treats an Animal like a Thing.

The reason is that an Animal can absolutely have a Profile. If there is support for a persons Profile, there should also be support for an Animal Profile. Think zoos, every single rescue and pet shelter, all the social media profiles dedicated to pets, ^ the website above, my website :), etc.

Having an Animal that is a Thing will allow search results to support Profile of Type Animal.

In addition to these common properties I am also supporting more variation on my platform and it can get more specific for sure but I think it should be generalized and match Person as much as possible and avoid complicated taxonomic structures.

The Idea

An Animal is a Thing.

The following properties will work for all common pets without specifically classifying them as a pet.

Properties of Animal (in parenthesis are example for each):
-additionalName (as in Rufus and Mr. Rufus)
-address (1234 Address Rd)
-affiliation (Bark Day Care Business)
-alumniOf (Local Shelter Name)
-animalID (A1310373)
-award (Best Boy 2024)
-birthDate (MM/DD/YYYY)
-birthPlace (123 Farm Rd.)
-breeder (www.bestboysbreeder.com)
-breed
-deathDate (MM/DD/YYYY)
-contactName (name of contact)
-contactEmail (the email)
-contactPhone (1238675309)
-coloring (in the case of fish)
-hasCertification (Service Dog)
-hasCredential (Canine Good Citizen)
-hasOccupation (Service Dog)
-height (2 ft)
-primaryLocation (the address)
-species
-size
-telephone
-weight
-url

The goal with this approach is to support all common pets. I welcome any thoughts and ideas.