I like Organism, but I don't like the inconsistency it would make with individualID and individualCount on the one hand, or extra work to change these to organismID and organismCount on the other. Individual doesn't carry these extra burdens, and could be added without breaking any existing applications.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Richard Pyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org">deepreef@bishopmuseum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">I think the only alternative to "Individual" that has been
floated, and might be more appropriate, is "Organism". In my mind, at
least, the word "Organism" can apply equally to a single cell, or a single
multicellular organism, or a group of individuals, or a colony, or a population,
or even a taxon. The advantage it has over "Individual" is that is more
clearly related to the biology domain (not to be confused with other things
called "Individual" in other domains), and also "Individual" might lead people
to assume that gorups and populations and such are not within
scope.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">I don't feel strongly about it either way -- it's just a
suggestion.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><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" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en-us" align="left">
<hr>
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve
Baskauf<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:21 PM<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">tuco@berkeley.edu</a><div class="im"><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [tdwg-content] Treatise on Occurrence, tokens, and basisOfRecord
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]<br></div></font><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div></div>John,<br>Thanks for the suggestion. It is appropriate given
the clarification that has been made through the course of the discussion on
this list. I have created a revised term definition and comments at <a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69</a>
.<br><br>With regards to the actual term name, I don't have any better
idea. If someone has a suggestion, perhaps they can post it to the list
for comment.<br>Steve<br><br>John Wieczorek wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Steve,
<div><br></div>
<div>Can you add a comment to Issue 69 in which you state the updated term
recommendation for the following?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Definition:</div>
<div>Comment:</div>
<div>Refines:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It might also be a good time to decide if Individual as a term name is
equally offensive to all. Sure, it doesn't capture exactly all of the things
an Individual might be, but the same is true of almost every term name -
people should always consult the definitions, comments, and secondary
documentation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Steve Baskauf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid;margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">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 href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/class" target="_blank">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 href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Individual" target="_blank">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 href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69" target="_blank">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
<div>
<div><br><br>Paul Murray wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><pre>What exactly is an individual? A flock? A herd? A breading pair? A
colony? A clonal stand?
</pre></blockquote><pre>One or more members of a class, for example, the class defined as all
members of a taxon.
</pre></blockquote><pre>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 href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a>
</pre></blockquote><br></div></div><pre 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 href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote><br><pre 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 href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br>