<!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">
<br>
<br>
Richard Pyle wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:9E945DF99FCA4B71B0FB0E2F086D406B@RLPLaptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Damn. Sent that too soon. Here's the rest:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Having made a decision about this based on functional need
and shared properties, it is still helpful for me to try to
develop a mental image of what these two things are. In my
mind, I imagine the ResamplingUnitHavingDetermination (which
I will henceforth return to calling dwc:Individual) to be an
entity having a homogeneous taxonomic identity.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I know that your original point for establishing the Class Individual was to
allow for Resampling of things -- and I think that's a key value to having a
class for Individual. But I don't think a class Individual that is
*restricted* to things that are resampled (or resamplable) is a wise
approach. A broader approach that serves the needs of resampled things
*and* things sampled only once would, I think, represent a better compromise
between consumer needs and provider needs.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the entity is removed
and preserved in its entirety (fish killed and put in a jar
of formaldehyde), it ceases to exist as a dwc:Individual and
begins to exist as an AccessionedUnit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you're talking about these as two separate classes in DwC, I'm getting
very nervous. There is very little ambiguity between an instance of
"Locality" and an instance of "Taxon". Same can be said for the other DwC
classes (except, maybe, Event and Occurrence -- but I think most people
would not have any trouble deciding what those two things are). However, I
see a lot of ambiguity between were an Individual ends, and a
BiologicalObject(=AccessionedUnit) begins. To me that says that dividing
them into separate classes is inviting confusion and inconsistent
application of DwC to existing (and most future) datasets.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Forget that I ever tried to try to describe how I "think" about
Individuals. Retract all of that and say that the thing I want is a
class for the object of the Darwin Core term individualID, whatever
that thing is. If anybody else can figure out how to make it other
things by nifty tricks of subclassing or domain definitions, have at it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9E945DF99FCA4B71B0FB0E2F086D406B@RLPLaptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree with the point that was made previously that no
specific taxonomic level should be placed in the definition
of Individual. That would allow for the possibility that
Individuals could contain several different lower level taxa
as long as the Individual is homogeneous at the taxonomic
level at with the determination is applied. I am open to
suggestion for how this could be accomplished. Somehow there
needs to be a value for a term like "individualScope" that
allows one to make the kind of inferences about duplicates
that I described previously.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Agreed. I think there does need to be a dwc:individualScope term, and there
should be a recommended Controlled Vocabulary to go along with it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">THE BOTTOM LINE
I believe that the proposed definition for the DwC class
Individual should stand as it is (i.e. as a node to connect
multiple Occurrences to multiple Identifications).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Unfortunately, we don't seem to be any closer to consensus on this point.
Perhaps others who have been following this dicussion can weigh in?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If we
can do these things, I think we could say that a general
(i.e. denormalized enough to satisfy everyone who is
dissatisfied at the present moment) Darwin Core model is
"complete" to the "left" of Identification on the
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/pages/full-model.jpg">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/pages/full-model.jpg</a> diagram.
I'm not going to touch the Taxon side right now.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree with everything in this diagram *except* the box labelled "multiple
tokens and types". I'm still unclear on what this thing is, and what sorts
of properties it would have. However, if it represents what I think it
reprersents, then I would hang it off the "Individual" class.
</pre>
</blockquote>
It means that in a single Occurrence you can take a picture, record, a
sound, and collect several specimens if you want. You can't hang if
off of the Individual class if you come back a year later and do it
again. Some people actually do that kind of thing (me, whale people,
bird people). If you want to keep Darwin Core as the "one specimen-one
time" club that it was when it started, then forget about the
Individual class.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9E945DF99FCA4B71B0FB0E2F086D406B@RLPLaptop"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Whether or not action is taken on creating a class for what
I'm calling "AccessionedUnit", there is no reason to hold up
action on my Individual class proposal if people agree with
the points I've made here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, including you and I, there is at least 50% agreement! :-)
Maybe others can wiegh in?
Aloha,
Rich
.
</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>