[tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping

Kevin Richards RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz
Sat Jun 4 05:37:07 CEST 2011


I agree with Dima here (probably my technical background  :-)).

Using a name string as an identifier breaks most of the rules of good identifiers.

Seems like the debate is really about what is exposed externally/publicly - by all means have a web service/url where you can put http://.../Aus bus, that does a 'search'/get of that name, but it should not be the ID for that name (or is it even the ID for that 'instance' of that name string?? - what if two people had two records about the same name string but treated them differently/had different properties etc for that name string? => results in bad conclusions, inferences).

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Dmitry Mozzherin
Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2011 2:34 a.m.
To: David Remsen (GBIF)
Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Dmitry Mozzherin; Orrell, Thomas; Alan J Hampson; Nicolson, David; Gerald Guala
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping

In my opinion UUIDs have a few advantages over strings --

1. It is uuid, so it will work with uuid tools (current and future ones)
2. It is less ambiguous -- For example -- what is the difference
between Betulа and Betula for your eyes? (one of them has a Cyrillic
'a')
3. Database wise it is faster to search because it is just a 128bit
number, while a name is at least 245 byte varchar -- it makes
searching much faster because in relational databases the size of keys
directly proportional to the search speed
4. UUID v. 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier)
allows to generate UUID algorithmically without looking up a database
(no need for network connection)
5. Links like http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)
might be ambigous -- I can think of several ways I can represent name
string part in the url and they will all resolve to the same thing in
GNI.
6. Unescaped unicode characters in url containing literal name strings
(people will forget to escape them) will depend on an implementation
of a url resolver

Saying this links like
http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)
are definitely attractive and is it good to have them as another way
to access a name!
My personal preference would be not use them as main identifier
because of the reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Dima




On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:59 AM, David Remsen (GBIF) <dremsen at gbif.org> wrote:
> Why not use the name as the basis for the resolvable identifier instead of
> a uuid. Isnt there a 1:1 cardinality between the name and the uuid in the
> GNI?  Doesnt that mean that
>
> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec
> and
> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)
>
> are equally unique?  The latter is certainly more readable.  In those
> cases where the namestring is a homonym like
>
> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe
>
> couldn't you just return the addresses of the two globally unique forms of
> the name when you resolve it?
>
> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Smith_1899
>
> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Jones_1900
>
> Wouldn't those be as globally unique and easier to read and adjust to?  Or
> am I missing something.  I always wanted to do that with ubio IDs after a
> back and forth with Gregor Hagedorn and wished we hadn't exposed those
> integers.
>
> DR
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I don't have time to go through this in detail, and I can't speak for the
>> GNI, but I can tell you about how the GNI URI's work at least for now.
>>
>> A while back Dima Mozzherin and I were looking into how triples etc. might
>> be of use to the GNI.
>>
>> We needed a way to generate unique URI's for each name.
>>
>> We wanted to avoid having to keep these in sync and not require everyone
>> to
>> look each ID up through some service.
>>
>> Dima came up with the following plan. We use the namestring as seed to
>> generate a unique UUID.
>>
>> Basically this is a shared algorithm which the GNI and TaxonConcept both
>> use. But it could be used by anyone.
>>
>> You feed the name string to the algorithm and it spits out a UUID. We
>> append
>> then append that to a URI and web service so it is resolvable.
>>
>> So the name Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus 1758)
>> => 4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec
>>
>> So if the GNI and and another group have the same namestring they have the
>> same UUID.
>>
>> People can then can link their data set to the GNI with the following URI
>>
>> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec
>>
>> RDF
>> http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf
>>
>> <http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf>If
>> you think of your data set as one table and the GNI as another, this URI
>> serves as the foreign key that connects them together.
>>
>> Some on the list don't like how these look, but there is a tremendous
>> advantage in not having to worry about syncing two large data sets and
>> determining if a given integer is already in use.
>>
>> Also Rod Page has written a recently about UUID's.
>> http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html
>>
>> <http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html>There
>> may be a way to do something similar with bit.ly like identifiers that are
>> shorter (mCcSp), but I think it the general idea is a good one.
>>
>> If you recall from my talk at TDWG, I was able to use these to make
>> statements that one namestring was a synonym etc. of another etc.
>>
>> The algorithm we use is written in Ruby but I could be ported to many
>> different languages since UUIDs are widely supported.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> - Pete
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Steven J. Baskauf <
>> steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>  My email access has been sporadic since this thread developed, so at
>>> this
>>> point I'll respond to points made in several of the messages.
>>>
>>> First, I should note that there has been previous discussion on this
>>> list
>>> on a similar topic from
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.htmlthrough
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html.
>>> One can review what was said at that time rather quickly by starting on
>>> the
>>> first linked message and clicking on the "Next Message" link until you
>>> get
>>> to the end of the range I gave above.
>>>
>>> My reason for the request for information that started this thread was
>>> that
>>> I wanted to link to a URI that would anchor the name portion of a
>>> name/sensu
>>> pair (TNU or Taxon Concept a la TCS if you prefer) as in this RDF
>>> snippet:
>>>
>>>    <tc:nameString>Quercus rubra L.</tc:nameString>
>>>    <tc:hasName
>>> rdf:about="http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439"
>>> <http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439>/>
>>>
>>>
>>> At this point in the discussion, I'm not actually talking about creating
>>> a
>>> link to a taxon concept but rather to a taxon name, so some of the
>>> issues
>>> Pete raised don't apply here (e.g. what's the "right" name for a concept
>>> -
>>> the question here is simply what's a stable identifier for the name) .
>>> In
>>> principle, I could probably just provide the name string and be done
>>> with
>>> it.  However, having some degree of faith that Smart, Computer Savvy
>>> People
>>> might some day be able to use the metadata returned by the URI (or
>>> perhaps
>>> metadata which they already have in a triple store onsite) to do cool
>>> things
>>> like knowing that my name is the same as an orthographic variant or that
>>> "Quercus rubra  L." is basically the same thing as "Quercus rubra", I
>>> would
>>> like to also provide a functional URI.
>>>
>>> As an end -user who isn't very interested in the technical issues
>>> involving
>>> names, I don't really care what URI I use.  I would prefer for it to be
>>> widely recognized and for it to "work" (i.e. be resolvable).  In the
>>> earlier
>>> (January) thread, there was discussion about existing identifiers.
>>> There
>>> were a number of posts, but in particular
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.htmldiscussed
>>> the relative merits of ITIS and uBio ID numbers.  My take-home
>>> message from this was that uBio represented the largest single set of
>>> names
>>> with assigned identifiers (see
>>> http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sourcescited in Pete's email) and that
>>> uBio metadata provides useful references.
>>> Hence my interest in referencing uBio ids as a URI.  However, as a
>>> practical
>>> matter, the organizations that I share images with either want ITIS TSNs
>>> (EOL and Morphbank) or just names (Discover Life).  Nobody is asking for
>>> uBio identifiers or any other identifier.
>>>
>>> I found Kevin's comment at
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html very
>>> thought-provoking: "My thoughts are that the most likely way this will
>>> be
>>> solved is by standard market type pressures - ie the best solution/IDs
>>> will
>>> be used the most and 'float' to the top."  I'm not going to make a
>>> judgment
>>> about what is the "best" solution or ID.  But I would say that in
>>> "computer"
>>> history, being the "best" doesn't necessarily mean that something will
>>> be
>>> used.  Take for example, the FOAF vocabulary.  What the heck is Friend
>>> of a
>>> Friend?  I would venture to say that most of the people using the FOAF
>>> vocabulary don't know or care.  The FOAF vocabulary was the one that
>>> people
>>> started to use and once that happened, people didn't switch even if
>>> there
>>> was something better.  I'm not familiar with the history of other stuff
>>> like
>>> YouTube and Craig's List, but I would guess that they weren't
>>> necessarily
>>> "the best" systems - they were just the one that the most people started
>>> using first and once that happened, people didn't switch.  I'm using
>>> ITIS
>>> IDs because they are easy to get and the people I communicate with want
>>> them.  Whether they are the "best" or "done correctly" doesn't matter to
>>> me
>>> as much as the fact that that they are widely recognized and stable (and
>>> that thus far every name that I've looked for has been in their
>>> database).
>>>
>>> I think that one reason why this question has been on my mind is that
>>> I've
>>> been waiting for GNUB (Global Name Use Bank) to come out.  I'm not
>>> really up
>>> on how it is going to work, but my impression is that it was going to be
>>> based on the Global Name Index (GNI) which was mentioned in that earlier
>>> January thread.  At that point, the GNI names didn't have any
>>> identifiers
>>> that were exposed to the public as permanent GUIDs.  I'm assuming that
>>> if
>>> GNUB refers to GNI names, they will have some kind of identifiers.  So
>>> if
>>> that happens how is the GUID recommendation 8 going to be followed?  As
>>> Kevin said in
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html "What
>>> I
>>> take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide ... is that
>>> if
>>> you DON'T already have a record in your own database for a taxon
>>> name/concept, then reuse an existing one.  "  What we have here with GNI
>>> is
>>> a situation where none of the records have identifiers.  In my mind, the
>>> "best practice" according to recommendation 8 would be for the GNI to
>>> reuse
>>> existing identifiers where they exist and NOT make up new ones.  This is
>>> a
>>> bit more complicated because the ITIS identifiers (which are in common
>>> use)
>>> don't have an http URI version that is resolvable, and while the uBio
>>> identifiers have a resolvable http URI, it's in the form of a proxied
>>> LSID,
>>> which I've already complained is very ugly.  So I'd like to hear some
>>> ideas
>>> about how to have "reused" identifiers in the GNI.
>>>
>>> One thing that comes to my mind would be to have a "domain name" like
>>> "http://purl.org/gni/" <http://purl.org/gni/> or
>>> "http://purl.org/tn/"<http://purl.org/tn/>("tn" for "taxon name") and to
>>> follow it with a namespace/id combination
>>> similar to what is done with lsids.  So for example "itis/19408" and
>>> "ubio/448439" could be appended, creating
>>> http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408and
>>> http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439 for "Quercus rubra  L."  Both URIs could
>>> point to the same RDF and that RDF could indicate that the two
>>> identifiers
>>> are owl:sameAs .  I realize from what Bob Morris has cautioned in the
>>> past
>>> that there are problems with owl:sameAs when the two things aren't
>>> actually
>>> the same thing (e.g. if the uBio ID refers to a name string only but the
>>> ITIS TSN refers to the name plus an "accepted" status and a relationship
>>> to
>>> parent taxa).  However, if there were an understanding that the GNI only
>>> refers to name strings, then one could still refer to
>>> http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408 as an identifier for the name string of
>>> the
>>> thing (whatever it is) that is referred to by an ITIS TSN of 19408.  I
>>> don't
>>> think there would be a problem saying that and the ubio ID were
>>> "owl:sameAs".  Some kind of solution like this would allow people to
>>> easily
>>> generate a resolvable URI for a name if they were using ITIS TSNs or
>>> uBio
>>> IDs.  If the name that one wanted to use was so obscure that it was one
>>> of
>>> the 9.5 million names that uBio has that ITIS doesn't have, then that
>>> name
>>> would only have the ubio version.  I have no idea whether this would be
>>> a
>>> good idea or not, but I was really cringing to think about 19 million
>>> newly
>>> minted UUIDs appended to
>>> "http://gni.globalnames.org/"<http://gni.globalnames.org/>and figuring
>>> out how to connect those horrid things to the names and ITIS
>>> TSNs that I'm already using.  I think that I said this before, but using
>>> the
>>> purl.org domain rather than one like http://gni.globalnames.org/ would
>>> in
>>> the future allow somebody else to take over management of providing the
>>> metadata when the GUIDs are resolved without having to deal with issues
>>> of
>>> who "owns" the domain name.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Richards wrote:
>>>
>>>  Pete,
>>>
>>> I’m not trying to say what you are doing is a waste of time/impossible.
>>> I
>>> actually think RDF + semantics are a good way forward, but this really
>>> implies that we need to rely on the semantics and linkages rather than
>>> having a SINGLE ID for a taxon name.  (which is what I thought Steve was
>>> getting at).  Each instance of a taxon name can have its own ID and then
>>> all
>>> these instances are connected via ontology defined semantic links.  This
>>> seems more appropriate to me than insisting everyone uses the “Global
>>> Taxon
>>> Name ID X”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In your example of *Aedes triseriatus* and *Ochlerotatus triseriatus* –
>>> these are two different names so they need two different IDs, they may
>>> be
>>> linked by a single taxon concept, but they are separate names.  So which
>>> of
>>> these now 3 IDs do you expect people to use, and according to what
>>> source??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example if we have a name, eg the Robin, Erithacus rubecula,
>>> mentioned
>>> in IT IS (TSN : 559964) and also in EOL (www.eol.org/pages/1051567),
>>> also
>>> in GBIF (http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780), also in avibase (
>>> http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D),
>>> which
>>> ID are you hoping people will use??  Would you put the IT IS ID in your
>>> own
>>> dataset as the ID for that name – unlikely.  Or would it be better to
>>> link
>>> them up with semantic linkages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide (as
>>> Steve
>>> puts is "stop making up new identifiers when somebody else already has
>>> one
>>> for the thing you are talking about”) is that if you DON’T already have
>>> a
>>> record in your own database for a taxon name/concept, then reuse an
>>> existing
>>> one.  NOT ditch all your current IDs and adopt someone else’s
>>> (especially
>>> hard considering it is so hard to work out which if the multitude of
>>> names
>>> ad concept IDs that directly relates to your taxon name).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am all for limiting the number of IDs for the “same” thing, but in
>>> some
>>> cases it is more useful to build linkages than force this tight
>>> integration
>>> of data and IDs.  Especially for taxon names and concepts, where it is
>>> complex to define if you are even talking about the “same” thing or not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Peter DeVries
>>> [mailto:pete.devries at gmail.com<pete.devries at gmail.com>]
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:38 p.m.
>>> *To:* Kevin Richards
>>> *Cc:* Steve Baskauf; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Gerald Guala;
>>> Nicolson,
>>> David; Alan J Hampson; Orrell, Thomas
>>> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot one mention some other things that are different about my
>>> project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can write a simple SPARQL query to get a list of all the
>>> TaxonConcept's
>>> that have ITIS ids, or all those that have ITIS and NCBI ID's etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can do this on any SPARQL endpoint that hosts the data.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can download the entire data set and run the queries on your own
>>> endpoint.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can write a script that runs the query and downloads the ITIS
>>> numbers
>>> and exports them to CSV etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Richards <
>>> RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is exactly why this problem still exists and will be very complex
>>> to
>>> solve - everyone says "we should have a single ID for a specific taxon
>>> name,
>>> there seems to be several IDs 'out there' that refer to the same taxon
>>> name,
>>> so Im going to create another ID to link them all up" - yet another ID
>>> that
>>> no one will particularly want to follow - you would have to get everyone
>>> to
>>> agree that your combinations/integration of taxon names is the best one
>>> and
>>> hope everyone follows it - unlikely in this domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't this kind of what the The Plant List, and eBird already do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A difference being that they tie these to a specific name and specific
>>> classification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Plant list is not really even open so it is difficult to people to
>>> adopt it in mass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, if I manage a herbarium, how do I easily reconcile my
>>> species
>>> list with the entities represented in the Plant List?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> eBird has millions of records which implies that they have been able to
>>> convince the observers in the field to adopt their system. You are
>>> correct
>>> in that there are probably a lot of taxonomists that don't like their
>>> list.
>>>
>>> It differs from many of the other classifications, but remember the
>>> system
>>> rewards them for not agreeing. Note the difference between the microbial
>>> taxonomists and other taxonomists. In the case of the microbial
>>>
>>> workers, the system rewards them for solving problems not debating
>>> alternatives. Also, if a good idea comes out that will make it easier
>>> for
>>> the microbiologists to solve the problems they are rewarded for solving,
>>> they are less likely to care whose idea it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like the microbiologists, there are lots of biologists that work with
>>> species with the goal of addressing some non-taxonomic problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't really care if the name is *Aedes triseriatus* or
>>> *Ochlerotatus
>>> triseriatus, *but they do care that the identifier that they connect
>>> their
>>> data to is stable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In regards to the issue of market forces,I suspect (but have no
>>> knowledge
>>> of) that there were probably decisions made in devising these lists that
>>> have more to do with appeasing certain personalities that creating best
>>> list. With the way this system rewards people it is likely that the
>>> "correct" version will float to the top only after that person has
>>> passed
>>> away. I don't have much faith that the best system will always float to
>>> the
>>> top, That has a lot to do with the personalities and how the system
>>> rewards
>>> are setup. Theoretically, it is possible for one strong personality or
>>> group
>>> to force others to adopt their less than optimal solution - at least
>>> this
>>> seems to happen in other environments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, there are all sorts of ways that people can use the publication
>>> record to rewrite history. Simply cite the review paper that cites the
>>> original paper. Or don't cite it at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have used only the ITIS TSN but if the name changes the ID
>>> changes.
>>> This isn't "wrong", it just does not solve my problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * ITIS also should add the spiders from the World Spider Catalog.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another issue that I think has inhibited adoption of a common list is
>>> that
>>> people can't agree on a particular name or a particular classification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you can model a species concept as having many names and many
>>> classifications why not do so?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this idea was originally accepted, I would not have needed to create
>>> TaxonConcept.org.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My plan has aways been to get something that works to solve some
>>> problems
>>> and then let some larger group take it over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a sense, I am more like the microbiologists in that I am not being
>>> paid
>>> to solve this or debate this problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am doing it because I think something like this is needed, and it is
>>> an
>>> interesting and personally rewarding puzzle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My thoughts are that the most likely way this will be solve is by
>>> stnadard
>>> market type pressures - ie the best solution/IDs will be used the most
>>> and
>>> "float" to the top.  It is easy to say that the global taxon name data
>>> is a
>>> mess, but if you think about it 30 years ago taxon name data were very
>>> disparate, duplicated, unconnected, many with NO IDs at all.  So I
>>> beleive
>>> we are making progress and that we will continue to do so albeit at a
>>> fairly
>>> slow rate.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I agree. This was one of the reasons that I setup TaxonConcept the way
>>> I
>>> did. It attempts to connect both the LOD entities and the foreign key
>>> based
>>> entities."
>>>
>>>  Please consider the environment before printing this email
>>> Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is
>>> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
>>> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately
>>> by
>>> reply email and then delete the emails.
>>> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research
>>> New
>>> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Pete DeVries
>>> Department of Entomology
>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>>> 1630 Linden Drive
>>> Madison, WI 53706
>>> Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
>>> TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
>>> GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
>>> Bases
>>> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Pete DeVries
>>> Department of Entomology
>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>>> 1630 Linden Drive
>>> Madison, WI 53706
>>> Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
>>> TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
>>> GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
>>> Bases
>>> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Please consider the environment before printing this email
>>> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
>>> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
>>> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately
>>> by
>>> reply email and then delete the emails.
>>> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research
>>> New
>>> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>>> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>>>
>>> postal mail address:
>>> VU Station B 351634
>>> Nashville, TN  37235-1634,  U.S.A.
>>>
>>> delivery address:
>>> 2125 Stevenson Center
>>> 1161 21st Ave., S.
>>> Nashville, TN 37235
>>>
>>> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>>> phone: (615) 343-4582,  fax: (615)
>>> 343-6707http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Pete DeVries
>> Department of Entomology
>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>> 1630 Linden Drive
>> Madison, WI 53706
>> Email: pdevries at wisc.edu
>> TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/>  &
>> GeoSpecies<http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge
>> Bases
>> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/>  Project
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David Remsen, Senior Programme Officer
> Electronic Catalog of Names of Known Organisms
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321472   Fax: +45-35321480
> Skype: dremsen
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list