<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16588">
<STYLE>@font-face {
        font-family: Wingdings;
}
@font-face {
        font-family: Wingdings;
}
@font-face {
        font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
A:link {
        COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
        COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
        COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
        COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P.MsoListParagraph {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-style-priority: 34
}
LI.MsoListParagraph {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-style-priority: 34
}
DIV.MsoListParagraph {
        MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; mso-style-priority: 34
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
        FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
        FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext; mso-style-type: personal
}
.MsoChpDefault {
        mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
        page: WordSection1
}
OL {
        MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm
}
UL {
        MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0cm
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-NZ link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=720581407-05072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>This is why I'm very uncormfortable with the entire notion of
"taxonID". The main reason I'm pushing so hard for taxonNameUsageID's (ala
GNUB) is that these are the "atoms" (as Dave R. calls them) of both nomenclature
*and* most existing concept definitions. If we can get permanent and
widely shared/re-used IDs on these "atoms", then we can assmble the complex
molecules from them. Someone's notion of a taxon concept then becomes a
set of TNUID's. I have mixed feelings about branding these sets with
permanent GUIDs; but if we did, this is what I imagine taxonID in DwC would
(ultimately) represent. If we want to archive the sets for posterity, then
we can certainly brand them with IDs. But I tend to think these can
instead by dynamic services, that assemble the sets either algorithmically, or
through the fingertips of experts.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=720581407-05072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=720581407-05072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>So...I guess before we do anything, we need to get a common
sense for what is intended to be represented by taxonID. I suspect my own
view is not shared by all (or even most).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=720581407-05072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=720581407-05072010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Rich</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Kevin
Richards<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 04, 2010 5:44 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [tdwg-content] Taxon Concept
dilemma<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Hello all,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>I have an issue that I would like some
comment on…<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>We have some data that covers Taxa, Names
and Concept relationships.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Eg<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2"
class=MsoListParagraph><![if !supportLists]><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">-<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><![endif]><SPAN lang=EN-US>A Taxon table that contains the
nomenclatural details + accepted name + parent name</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2"
class=MsoListParagraph><![if !supportLists]><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">-<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><![endif]><SPAN lang=EN-US>Concept + relationship tables that
contain details about the name + references where the name has been used in a
taxonomic sense (ie not nomenclatural information) – this is specifically a
link between the Name and a Reference</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>We have fairly permanent Ids for the Taxon Name
(nomenclatural) and the Concepts, but I now what to consider the ID to cover
the whole Taxon (ie the Nomenclatural data + taxon rank + parent name +
accepted name, etc, as “we” understand them). (Probably equivalent to
the taxonID in Dwc)<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>The problem is this tends to be much more dynamic data –
ie, in this particular case we have aggregated data from a variety of
providers and are in continual revision of this data - as we revise the data
the details such as the accepted name may change – this troubles me a bit,
because this could be seen as fundamentally changing the definition of the
object behind the taxonID. However, I suspect this is a common case that
people find themselves in – ie revision/tidying of aggregated datasets must be
quite common.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I would prefer to NOT change the taxonID every time we
revise that data (taking the angle that these changes are corrections, so are
not changing the object itself).<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Should it be OK to have an object type like this, that is
likely to change, but keep the ID permanent for it – ie accept that some
object types are quite dynamic?<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>The only other option is to maintain a hideous version
audit trail, that probably hinders the use of the data more than it benefits
the end user by providing “stability”.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Any thoughts?<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Kevin<o:p></o:p></P></DIV><BR>
<HR>
<FONT color=green size=1 face=Arial>Please consider the environment before
printing this email<BR>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.<BR>The views expressed
in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>