What you propose works except that it is not stable to changes in nomenclature.<div><br></div><div>It is really no better than using the name.</div><div><br></div><div>You are still left with is <i>Aedes triseriatus</i> the same as <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i>?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Data linked to <a href="http://example.org/Aedes_triseriatus">http://example.org/Aedes_triseriatus</a> is lost when the name is changed to <a href="http://example.org/">http://example.org/</a><meta charset="utf-8">Ochlerotatus_triseriatus</div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>> <meta charset="utf-8">by citing a secundum</div><div><br></div><div>Yes if that publication is generally available and contains enough information that a set of general taxonomists will assign the same <i>secundum</i> to the same set of specimens.</div>
<div>and if everyone uses the exact same string of characters to when citing that <i>secundum</i></div><meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>> <meta charset="utf-8">the proposal saves this trivial processing time, but does not contribute to the problem</div>
<div><br></div><div>If this is so trivial then why does GBIF have one map for <i>Felis concolor</i> and one map for <i>Puma concolor</i>?</div><div><br></div><div>also why does the Barcode of life not have all their <i>Aedes triseriatus</i> and <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i> mapped to one id rather than one for each name and misspelling?</div>
<div><br></div><div>> <meta charset="utf-8">se:Puma_concolor_sec._Smith</div><div><br></div><div>How many lexical variants of the string above are there likely to be?</div><div><br></div><div>The GNI name string URI's are simply a way to create a correctly formed URI from a name</div>
<div><br></div><div>I have the name string "Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771)" in my database, the GNI has the same namestring.</div><div><br></div><div>We share a common algorithm to convert this into a standard uuid > '772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9'</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now as long as the GNI has the same namestring I have, I can link our two databases together using the following URI.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>These URI are simply to allow different databases to link to each other.</div><div><br></div><div>Names as they are structured do not make good URI's since certain characters need to be encoded so (Schmoe) becomes something like %28Schmoe%29 in a URL.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What you see as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassia_(legume)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassia_(legume)</a> is actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassia_%28legume%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassia_%28legume%29</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Also what about heterotypic synonyms? </div><div><br></div><div>Things like & need to be replace with <b>&amp</b>; Note that if you are not careful this can become <b>&amp</b>;<b>&amp</b>;<b>&amp</b>;<b>&amp</b>;<b>&amp</b>; as it is re-encoded.</div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>The GNI URI's are not for human consumption and if you view the entity above in a semantic web browser (see link below) it will substitute the URI for the human label.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Note that this is what Sig.ma has done with both the GNI URI's and the Geonames URI's.</div><div><br></div><div>The difference is that in this case the RDF has made it clear that we mean "<i>the geospatial entity that is the state of Texas</i>."</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://sig.ma/search?pid=013030d4a93abdd6206234b683c51b31">http://sig.ma/search?pid=013030d4a93abdd6206234b683c51b31</a><br></div><div><br>So these have a human label, unfortunately your current browser does not know to display it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also aren't TDWG URI's supposed to be opaque?</div><div><br></div><div>To an extent the TaxonConcept URI's are designed for humans in that it is easier to copy and paste and type <b>V2ldt</b> or <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/V2ldt.html">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/V2ldt.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>than </div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp and T. W. Quinn 2000</div><div><br></div><div>and then recognize that this is the same thing as </div>
<div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp and T. W. Quinn, 2000</div><div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp & T. W. Quinn, 2000</div>
<div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><div><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp & T. W. Quinn 2000</div></div><div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><div><div><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp et T. W. Quinn 2000</div>
</div></div><div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><div><div><div><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> J. R. Young, C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. R. Hupp et T. W. Quinn, 2000</div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><meta charset="utf-8"><i>Centrocercus minimus</i> Young et al., 2000</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is also clear (or will be) that <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/V2ldt.html">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/V2ldt.html</a> is about a species that is known by all those names and other synonyms through the GNI.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In contrast is not clear that <i>Centrocercus minimus</i> Young et al., 2000 is the same as all the other name variants listed above or that it may have other synonyms.</div><div><br></div><div>This is without getting into the variations in <i>secundum</i>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So are people going to include all the possible name variants in their data sets or simply choose a uri that links to those variants for them?</div><meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><div>The current species concepts are not complete in the sense that they do not make it clear as to what is and what is not an instance of a given species concept.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, they are a start and since they contain links to both Wikipedia and Wikispecies, as well as a number of other annotative information sources, they will provide</div><div>humans a simple way to determine if what they have in their records is the same "kind of thing" as what is represented by the species concept URI.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also there is nothing that says that <a href="http://taxonconcept.org">taxonconcept.org</a> could not be moved to some other institution in the future.</div><div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div>
<br></div><div>- Pete</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gregor Hagedorn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com">g.m.hagedorn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">A side remark, about where I believe the whole discussion is misleading:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Puma concolor se:v6n7p<br>
> That way in the future if the name changes without a change in the concept.<br>
> Eupuma concolor se:v6n7p<br>
> The data says linked.<br>
<br>
</div>This always looks nice... However, with such proposals we, the<br>
computer guys, make the concept-assessment someone elses problem (i.e.<br>
the taxonomists, ecologists, pathologist, etc.), and, at the same<br>
time, do not provide them the means to communicate. The assumption is<br>
that a scientist or applied worker would know whether to add se:v6n7p<br>
to a given taxon name or not.<br>
<br>
With my taxonomer/pathologist hat on: I mostly have no clue which<br>
concept XXX concolor is - and whether it is changed or not. Puma<br>
concolor may be a different concept than Puma concolor. We are, of<br>
course, guilty of communicating in a shamefully loose way (s.str., s.<br>
lat. etc.), which could and should be improved by citing a secundum,<br>
but beyond that: mapping concepts is a taxonomic opinion, no objective<br>
truth.<br>
<br>
So given that any trivial mapping mechanism can map multiple IDs (Puma<br>
concolor, Eupuma concolor) to a single concept - the proposal saves<br>
this trivial processing time, but does not contribute to the problem<br>
of communicating in a way that is suitable to assess taxon concepts.<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
Aside: Please compare the highly linked, and generally correctly<br>
linked Wikipedias with other content management system for the<br>
advantage of human legible IDs [[Puma concolor]] over<br>
<a href="http://x.y.net/node/234872561" target="_blank">http://x.y.net/node/234872561</a> - links. My own observation is that in<br>
the latter case only a fraction of the desirable links are created,<br>
and that these are quite often going to wrong, or perhaps obsoleted<br>
places.<br>
<br>
I therefore think:<br>
se:Puma_concolor_sec._Smith<br>
would be a much more useful mechanism than all the<br>
computer-scientists-only proposals like se:v6n7p or<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">Gregor<br>
</font></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><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> / <a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>