[tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

Mon Dec 9 18:24:33 CET 2013

I'm not following this thread carefully enough to have an opinion, but
my minor worry---if it is not misguided---would be that making a
solution for dwca alone might prematurely tie down solutions in more
general representations.  Markus' scope redefinition doesn't seem to
risk that since it applies to the vocabulary, not the serialization.
Probably that is also the case if adding typifiedName.

What's less clear to me is the impact of the sentence "In case of
multiple [...] typeStatus and a scientificName."  I took this to mean
that this advice might bind the problem to dwca, but in private email,
Markus clarified for me that he only means that it is a way to use it
with dwca. So what follows might deserve a new thread here or in
tdwg-rdf rather than propose a concern about Markus' post.

All that said, when I look at
http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.xml I can see a pretty
natural OWL representation of it. (Maybe that extension XML-Schema
actually \is/ a translation of an OWL ontology!  Oooh, wouldn't that
be delightful.  :-)   ).  So maybe there is not much of a concern for
data representation in RDF, and the worrisome sentence would become
not a concern for RDF, but rather simply a more general piece of
advice something like "In case of multiple names being typified by a
single specimen, the RDF data should be consistent with the
ontology http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.owl."

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Markus Döring <m.doering at mac.com> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the examples, valuable to know these.
>
> The important change to me is that typeStatus becomes cleaner by redefining
> the scope of that term so that it is narrower and only deals with the
> status, but not the name or designation reference. In case there are
> multiple names being typified a multi valued type status alone does not seem
> to be very useful (needs at least to be paired with the typified name). I
> would therefore also suggest to remove the list character from the
> typeStatus definition.
>
> In case of multiple names being typified by a single specimen the
> identification extension could (should) be used in dwc archives which has
> the typeStatus and a scientificName. If the new term typifiedName exists it
> could be also added, but its likely being the exact same as the identified
> scientificName.
> http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.xml
>
> Does that sound acceptable to everyone?
>
> best,
> Markus
>
>
>
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 00:00, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>
> So, if I understand the context properly from John's point below,
> "typifiedName" would be effectively redundant to typeStatus within the
> context of an instance of dec:Identification; with the former used in "flat"
> cases where the basis of record is an Occurrence/Specimen; and the latter
> would be used (in conjunction with typeStatus) in cases when data are
> provided in more structured form.
>
> I guess I don't have any problem with this (there are other redundancies
> within DwC, such as the higher rank taxon name fields and
> higherClassification within the Taxon class).
>
> But I still think there would need to be some guidance on how to deal with
> cases where a single specimen might have multiple type designations (and
> multiple typeStatus values, as is the case in the two examples I sent
> earlier).  Note that the definition of typeStatus already accommodates
> multiple values:
> "A list (concatenated and separated) of nomenclatural types (type status,
> typified scientific name, publication) applied to the subject."
>
> Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to define typifiedName in the same
> way.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtuco.btuco at gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco at gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of John Wieczorek
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:04 AM
> To: Chuck Miller
> Cc: Eades, David Cluthe; Markus Döring; Richard Pyle; TDWG Content Mailing
> List
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
>
> ...and if so, could the Darwin Core Identification History extension
> (http://tools.gbif.org/dwca-
> validator/extension.do?id=http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Identification)
> be an appropriate and sufficient mechanism to share multiple type
> designation?
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>
> wrote:
>
> Nomenclaturally, there are certainly specimens that are the type for
>
> multiple names.  And there are specimens that may be physically annotated
> with multiple type names on them.
>
>
> But, I think for Markus' purposes, the issue is whether  there are
>
> examples
>
> of a specimen data exchange record that includes multiple values for
> typifiedName.  Is there anyone who is or needs to include multiple
> typifiedNames in their specimen data exchange records, particularly with
> GBIF?
>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Eades, David
> Cluthe
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:49 AM
> To: Markus Döring; Richard Pyle
> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
>
> The Orthoptera Species File contains many examples of one specimen as
>
> type for multiple names.  One example:
>
> Burmeister, 1838 designated a specimen a syntype of Xiphidium
>
> glaberrimum.
>
> Vickery & Johnstone, 1974 designated the same specimen as lectotype of
>
> Xiphidum glaberrimum and as neotype of Orchelimum cuticulare Serville
> 1838.  This was done to settle any ambiguity about the synonymy.
>
>
> David Eades
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Markus
> Döring
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:09 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
>
> Rich, do you have examples of a specimen being the (current) type of
>
> multiple names?
>
> I was looking for these but could not find any. As the GBIF data coming
>
> in is
>
> flat we obviously only see simple cases and I'd be interested to study the
> more complex ones.
>
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 04 Dec 2013, at 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm.....
>
> This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification
> class
> -- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as
> an occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is
>
> Identified.
>
> This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really
> is -- that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a
> specimen is
> *designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification
> instance.
>
> Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in
> an ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus"
> field in their specimen table (rather than in an Identification
> table), I can certainly understand the need for this proposed new term.
>
> I guess my main concern/question is:  how to deal with specimens that
> represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not
> necessarily an Edge-case either)
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM
> To: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
>
> Dear all,
>
> This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new
> term, typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core
> issue tracker at
>
> https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197.
>
> The justification given for inclusion of the term is:
>
> "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific
> name that
>
> is
>
> typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how
> dwc:typeStatus
>
> has
>
> been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the
> need to express this, but it should better be handled with a term on
> its own and leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The
> term name itself is
>
> also
>
> used by ABCD:
> http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603."
>
> The proposal is as follows:
>
> Definition:
> The scientific name that is based on the type specimen.
>
> Comment:
> It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen.
>
> Refines:
>
> Has Domain:
>
> Has Range:
>
> Replaces:
>
> ABCD 2.06:
>
> DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignatio
>
> n s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390

Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morris.bob at gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
Harvard University.