<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
OK, I'm going to respectfully disagree here. dwc:Individual is not
"overloaded" any more than dwc:class is overloaded. We know that
dwc:class does not mean the same thing as "class" in RDF or Java
because the term name is <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/class">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/class</a>, not
"class". We know that the proposed dwc:Individual has a specific
meaning because it would be <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Individual">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Individual</a> and
not "individual" in the sense of OWL or RDF or anything else. <br>
<br>
The problem here is not lack of a clear definition for the proposed DwC
class dwc:Individual . That thing has been defined to death, having
been the subject of an entire published paper (Biodiversity Informatics
7:17-44), and having its definition restated at least three times in
this thread. The problem is people entering the thread without being
aware that it's been defined or having not read any of the definitions
(I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just observing that this has
happened several times in the thread). So one last time, I'll define
what I intend for dwc:Individual to mean ("taxon" here means terminal
taxon, species, ssp., or var.):<br>
<br>
Layman's definition: a representative of a single taxon that serves to
connect one or more dwc:Occurrences to one or more dwc:Identifications.<br>
<br>
More technical definition: a resource representing a single taxon that
serves as a node (sensu RDF) connecting one or more instances of the
class dwc:Occurrence to one or instances of the class
dwc:Identification . <br>
<br>
These are functional definitions - they define what dwc:Individual
"does" not what dwc:Individual "is". What dwc:Individual "is" is
anything that fits the definition. Thus a biological individual can be
a dwc:Individual, as can a clump of moss. The mixed-species content of
a pitfall trap cannot be an individual because it does not represent a
single taxon. Groups of biological individuals that are too large to
know for sure that they are a single taxon probably shouldn't be
considered a dwc:Individual. <br>
<br>
I would be perfectly happy with changing the term name from
"Individual" to something else as long as the definition of its purpose
doesn't change and as long as dwc:individualID and the proposed
dwc:individualRemarks are changed to match. <br>
<br>
Leaving the term undefined and axiomatic is not an option. We have a
proposal for a term addition to DwC
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69</a>) that's been
on the table for nine months and I've essentially "called for the
question" on the proposal. So unless somebody has something to add
that's different from what has already been discussed at great length,
let's move on.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
Paul Murray wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:013A7434-8B80-466D-B653-5982560EB2BA@anbg.gov.au"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What exactly is an individual? A flock? A herd? A breading pair? A
colony? A clonal stand?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">One or more members of a class, for example, the class defined as all
members of a taxon.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We'll have to add "individual" to the list of overloaded terms.
In the world of taxonomy and specimen curation, it apparently possibly means various things (perhaps "living things you can count"? "Living things that are identifiably the same thing from one day to another"? The boundaries of individuals are sometimes wobbly.).
In the world of OWL and RDF, an individual is an unspecified something that can be the subject or object of a (object) property. Individuals can be named with URIs.
Perhaps, then, an individual is simply "A living thing that we are sufficiently interested in to identify as an individual". That is: essentially to leave the term undefined and axiomatic.
------
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
------
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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) 343-6707
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>