I should have probably been more clear that what I had stated previously was a bit of a rhetorical question.<div><br></div><div>There had been a species concept id in an earlier version of the DarwinCore.</div><div><br></div>
<div>I was checking out this page and noticed that it was gone.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon</a></div><div><br></div><div>
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon"></a>It seems to have been either deleted or replaced with what I call "nameID's"</div><div><br></div><div>I have been working with the EOL Woods Hole group looking at ways that names can be connected to concepts as part of the GNI.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We have a sample set of about 70,000 species that have the following kinds of mappings:</div><div><br></div><div>1) basic mapping to lexical variants in the GNI</div><div>2) basic mapping to other related semantic web identifier that have a "similar" meaning</div>
<div>3) Basic mapping to foreign key identifiers in various databases</div><div>4) A place in the RDF for mapping the species concept to various publications</div><div><br></div><div>In the future, I would like to add additional information that will allow a human or machine to determine how well a particular specimen matches a particular concept.</div>
<div><br></div><div>These are not in the current version of the RDF but their is a placeholder for this kind of data.</div><div><br></div><div>These species concepts are not the only potential kind of concept, but they are a data set that can be used to try out and see what works.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What I was hoping was that there would be some field in the DarwinCore that would allow a user to map their specimen to the URI for a species concept.</div><div><br></div><div>These would not have to be only for these particular species concepts, but something that worked in a similar way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here are some examples of these species concepts that are live on the Linked Open Data Cloud.</div><div><br></div><div>The links on this page will take you to Sig.ma, a semantic web portal that allows one to view what the Linked Open Data Cloud "knows" about these species concepts.</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-taxa/">http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-taxa/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Here are some example SPARQL queries that can be run live against the data in the LOD cloud</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/">http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I have a small set of sample occurrence records in this data set that are not currently in DarwinCore but I hope to modify in the near future.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This first blog entry provides a brief introduction to this particular conceptualization.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept-blog/2010/6/9/introductory-blog-entry.html">http://www.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept-blog/2010/6/9/introductory-blog-entry.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/taxonconcept-blog/2010/6/9/introductory-blog-entry.html"></a>I think that I should have probably stated my initial question a little differently.</div><div><br></div>
<div><i>Is there still a field that expect a URI and allows concepts like mine to be linked to species occurrence records?</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>On first glance, it appeared as if this functionality had been removed.</i></div>
<div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Peter DeVries <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I was looking through the latest DarwinCore and comments related to the TaxonConceptID.<div><br></div><div>Since the name serves as both a unique identifier and a phylogenetic hypothesis, you are effectively saying that observations labeled </div>
<div><br></div><div><i>Aedes triseriatus</i></div><div><br></div><div>and</div><div><br></div><div><i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i> </div><div><br></div><div>Are separate species concepts, and should therefore be treated as separate things.</div>
<div><br></div><div>i.e. The name is the concept.</div><div><br></div><div>Also since there are several name variants for each "species", how do you distinguish which of these nameID's are the same species and which are different?</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><div><br></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <br>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>----------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <br>About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>