Hi Nico,<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><div><br></div>
</div>I would have stopped here! If someone wants to point to a series of objects to indicate his own concept of a "species", then that's ok. That's a convention we can work with.</div><div><br></div><div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You might be right about the point above, </div><div><br></div><div>I will repeat the earlier sentence with add emphasis, since you seemed to have misinterpreted my meaning.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4">I would argue that most of those who work with species related data see them as <b>useful typological constructs</b> which <b>in general</b> follow the biological species model.</font></div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><div>As a practical matter the issue is this:</div><div><br></div><div>Are we modeling this because the main queries will be to find variations in identifications or are we modeling this so that facts that are tied to <b>useful shared typological constructs are findable.</b></div>
<div><b><br></b></div><div>The model supports links to alternative concepts. The uniprot and bio2rdf, and DBpedia URI's can be considered closely related concepts.</div><div><br></div><div>The way this works ideally is that the identifier of this insect (from TDWG) makes the assertion that</div>
<div><br></div><div>this observation <a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>
represents and instance of this concept <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species</a></div><div><br></div><div>Now that data can be combined with other data sets making related assertions and the role that that this shared typological construct plays in the environment and it relationship to other shared typological constructs can be analyzed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Analyzed in a much more reliable and repeatable way that when data is assigned to one of a number of different name strings which may or may not identify the same concept.</div><div><br></div><div>Under the alternative model, are identifications of <i>Aedes triseriatus</i> and <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i> identifications of the same thing? Who makes that determination?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><meta charset="utf-8"><meta charset="utf-8"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Everything else you talk about below seem to be a confused mashup of "species" as a taxon and "species" as ranks.</div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Species
in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those individuals
that are appropriate mates. In other words members of their own species.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Really? Maybe in animals but everywhere else I don't think so! And what about asexual organisms? I guess they do not deserve the status of "species". So, the biological species concept you are referring to can't be universally applied = not a good concept to use for ALL organisms, right?</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Are
we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of
species?</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Is there anything else out there besides the human conceptualization of species? Do we have an absolute concept of what a species represent? Last time I checked we have been arguing about this for the past century and more. Species defined by the 25+ species concepts out there can't possibly be real. They are defined by human conceptualization = artificial. The only think we can clearly try to discern are clades and often those clades may correspond with someone's concept of a species. In other words, you can take the rank of species and point it at a node that define a taxon. Or you can take the rank of species and point it to an assemblage of lineages, regardless if that assemblage represents a monophyletic group or not. Traditionally recognized species are most likely polyphyletic anyways.</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I
stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That
individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what
species it is a human issue.</font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>What do you really mean by individuals? Are species created by the gods and we just can't figure out what they meant? Human issue? We, humans came up with this impossible to define concept. Individuals are just that: individuals. The individuals = species hypothesis has been argued in the literature and is not an accepted notion by far (note: I am not saying I agree or disagree, this is just another non-absolute concept). But maybe you don't mean it that way.</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Again,
Are we modeling <b><font face="Arial" size="5"><span style="font-size:18px">species</span></font></b> or variations in human conceptualizations of
<b><font face="Arial" size="5"><span style="font-size:18px">species</span></font></b>?</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Your statement is recursive. You have an idea of species that is above all of the other variations on the theme. I don't understand what you mean and that's why I think there is a confusion between the usage of "species" as a taxon and "species" as an arbitrary rank.</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Which
of these is of primary importance to decision makers and non-taxonomist
biologists? </span></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Part
of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies and
taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific phylogenetic
hypothesis.</font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Even in the lack of a phylogenetic framework, every species is a hypothesis. When we lump and split we generate hypotheses. A new name points to a new hypothesis. Adding a new <i>genus</i> to a <i>family</i> or a new <i>species </i>to a <i>genus</i> refines and modifies the original hypothesis.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">In
the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make them
out to be. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>In fact, the only way we can discover a little more clarity is through phylogenies. When it comes to low level taxa, population studies help a lot too. </div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Each
individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene
lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>But as you stated above you equate individuals with species. if that's correct, then you admit that individuals can be polyphyletic, and as such do we really care about polyphyletic entities? As such you admit that species as you define them are artificial.</div>
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I
would argue that most of those who work with species related data see
them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the
biological species model.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>I actually don't and I can name many others who don't. The rank of species may be useful to many as communication tool but the way it is applied vary a lot. The biological species concept is not widely accept and certainly not followed by the vast majority as you indicate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The only think we can really achieve from an informatics standpoint is to reconcile objects (specimens, images, sequences, descriptions, etc.etc.) with the many names that may have been associated with those and leave the rest (philosophical masturbation) to the users. Reconciling names with concepts, given the nature of the concepts and the idiosyncratic way that names have been historically used, is a Quixoterian challenge.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Nico</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im"><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Aedes
triseriatus</i> owl:sameAs <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Others
seem to see them as phylogenetic end nodes which entail a specific
phylogenetic history. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div>
<font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Aedes
triseriatus</i> distinctFrom <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus</i></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><i><br>
</i></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">If
you are primarily interested in understanding issues of ecology,
disease, diversity and conservation the former model is more
appropriate than the later.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Respectfully,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">-
Pete</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Steve Baskauf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im">
I beg to differ.
<div><br>
<br>
Peter DeVries wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">About occurrences.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is the specimen (individual) that gets identified and it
can
have several identifications.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
I do not believe it is a good idea to equate "specimen" with
individual. I have reached the conclusion that a specimen CAN be an
individual if one chooses to type a particular "thing" as both a
specimen and and an Individual but I'm not comfortable with saying that
they are owl:sameAs . It is my opinion, and I think one that was
supported to some extent in the discussion of last Oct/Nov that when we
"identify" some kind of evidence like a a branch cut from a tree we are
really making a statement about what taxon we think the tree
represents, not the branch per se. This is an important distinction,
because if we are identifying the tree, then any branch that is
dcterms:partOf the tree shares that identification. This may seem like
an esoteric point, but it is one that has a fairly significant bearing
on how one chooses to construct a model. I will stop there because I
don't want to re-plough the same ground again. The relevant posts are
summarized and referenced on the DSW pages explaining the
IndividualOrganism and Specimen classes. <br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
There is an issue with occurrence records that we saw with one of the
initial TDWG BioBlitz RDF Versions.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There were multiple identifications but there was no way of
indicating which was the preferred.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Again, I beg to differ. It was my understanding (again from the
extensive conversation about this in Oct/Nov) that the creation of
multiple Identifications were "preference agnostic". Each
Identification represented an expressed opinion about the concept/TNU
that the determiner asserted that the individual represented. They
were not flagged as "right" or "wrong". In fact, it is possible that
there could be several Identifications by different determiners that
asserted the same concept/TNU, indicating that the determiners agreed
with each other.
</div><div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div><div class="im">
<div>Assuming that there was only one individual organism
identified
there is really one one species (or hybrid).</div>
</div></blockquote>
</div><div class="im">
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Please Nico C., don't take this one up!
</div><div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div>Different human identifiers make assertions about what that
species is, those different identifications are then tied to the
individual organism.</div>
</div></div></blockquote>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Yes I agree entirely.
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In other words it is the specimen that is identified not the
occurrence.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Yes, the occurrence was not identified. But I would say the
individual, not the specimen (as explained above).
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If your additional identification RDF links to the specimen
then
it will be linked to the occurrence so someone can browse from the
occurrence and look at the identification history of the specimen.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does, this answer your question?</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Not really, but I think the issue here is that the way you are
conceptualizing specimens, individuals, and identifications is NOT the
same as DSW defines them. So I retract my earlier statement that the
<a href="http://taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">taxonconcept.org</a> ontology and DSW are really the
same thing with
different term names .<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Steve</font>
</div></div><div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Pete<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Steve
Baskauf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div><div></div><div class="h5">OK, Pete, I'm going to try
to
write the other email that I mentioned in
the previous one. This email relates to the actual suggestion that you
made in the email, that is to use the URIs of the form like: <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Occurrence" target="_blank">"http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Occurrence"</a>.
In the RDF that
defines what this URI means, the URI is described as "A lightweight tag
that can be used to label occurrences of this species". What I'm not
sure about is what exactly one is supposed to do with it. From the
example that I was talking about in the previous email
(<a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf" target="_blank">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf</a>),
this "tag" is the object of the predicate
txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag . So I guess that it is another
way that one could query Occurrence records to find out which ones are
Occurrences of the species having the identifier "ICmLC" (<i>Boloria
selene</i>). But I'm not sure what the advantage of that is. The RDF
for the Occurrence already tells me that the Occurrence has the
txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesConcept property with object URI <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species</a>
. I can resolve that URI
and "find out" that the "species concept" (sensu
DeVries) is <i>Boloria selene</i> . But if I used the "lightweight
tag" I'd also have to resolve its URI to find out about it and the RDF
for the tag directs me to the <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species</a>
URI anyway via the
dcterms:isPartOf property of the tag. I guess the point is that if one
wants to "find out" about the Occurrence, it takes two steps to get to
the species concept description if I use the tag (first through
txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag, then through dcterms:isPartOf)
which is no advantage over just getting there in one step (via
txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesConcept). If the only point is to have
something to put in as a search term, then why not just make the
txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag a data property with the literal
object the string "ICmLC"? <br>
<br>
I suppose that one could say that an advantage of the "lightweight tag"
approach would be that one is indicating that the particular Occurrence
is an instance of a class that consists of all Occurrences of the
species <i>Bororia selene</i>. That seems to be what the intention
is. But this seems to be a case of creating many subclasses rather
than having a general class and assigning it properties that help one
to understand the nature of the instance of that class. It requires
the creation of a class for every species on the planet. Instead of
there being a relatively small number of classes that includes the
basic kinds of resources (Occurrence, individual, Identification, taxon
concept) there is a class for occurrences of every kind of taxon
concept.
Actually, there are several classes for every instance of taxon
concept, because you are recommending that the "lightweight tag"
approach be used for other types of things as well, such as individuals
and (in your suggestion below, populations). There isn't anything
intrinsically "wrong" with this approach, but with my bias toward
preferring "well known" types/classes it just seems like a lot to
expect consuming applications to "understand" what amounts to
potentially millions of classes that this method would introduce.<br>
<br>
I also don't quite understand what a txn:SpeciesOccurrenceTag is
exactly. In the RDF that defines the txn:SpeciesOccurrenceTag instance
for <i>Bororia selene</i>
(<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Occurrence" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Occurrence</a>)
the
dcterms:description says that it "allow species occurrences to be
modeled as instances of SpeciesOccurrenceTag". But that doesn't seem
to be what is actually occurring. When the Occurrence instance <a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Occurrence" target="_blank">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Occurrence</a>
is described, it is not typed as the lightweight tag (which IS a
txn:SpeciesOccurrenceTag because of the implicit typing caused by the
XML container element name). The lightweight tag URI is the object of
the txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag property, but that doesn't
make the Occurrence an instance of SpeciesOcurrenceTag as would be the
case (I think) if the lightweight tag URI were the object of a rdf:type
property. Anyway, I'm confused about this.<br>
<br>
The other issue that I would raise with this approach is that it brings
up the same issue that I raised in the other email that I wrote. It
essentially puts a burden of anticipating the results of a query onto
the metadata provider. If one follows the model of allowing multiple
Identifications for an organism, then it is possible that someone
somewhere else might apply their own Identification instance to the
individual represented in the Occurrence. As was the case in my
earlier example, for txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag to be useful
as a thing to be queried, the metadata provider would need to somehow
know that this additional Identification had been made, and then create
another txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesOccurrenceTag property for the
Occurrence instance. This seems to somewhat at odds with the benefit
that the Linked Data world has in allowing resources to be created by
people all over the cloud and then linked rather than expecting a
centralized authority to do everything. <br>
<br>
Anyway, maybe you can explain what is going on so that I can understand
it better and maybe explain why this approach is better than just
creating a few classes and describing their instances by descriptive
properties. <br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Steve</font>
</div></div><div>
<div><br>
<br>
Peter DeVries wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5">I am still somewhat puzzled why TDWG
seems
so opposed to
adopting anything that comes from outside a small click?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I was thinking that it would be best to create a separate
class
that can be used for populations of a species.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This would require adding an additional tag to the
TaxonConcept
Species Concept Model, which currently includes several tags like
entities</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Species</a>
<- The Species Concept for the Cougar</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>See <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.htm" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.htm</a>l
HTML</div>
<div> <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf</a>
RDF</div>
<div> <a href="http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flod.taxonconcept.org%2Fses%2Fv6n7p%23Species" target="_blank">http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flod.taxonconcept.org%2Fses%2Fv6n7p%23Species</a>
Knowledge Base View (<a href="http://bit.ly%20bit.ly/gMFqR1" target="_blank">http://bit.ly
bit.ly/gMFqR1</a></div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>The model mints URI's for the following related entities.
See
RDF. or KB View</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Image" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Image</a>
- An image of a Cougar</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Occurrence" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Occurrence</a>
- An occurrence of a Cougar</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Individual" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Individual</a>
- An individual Cougar</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Taxonomy" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#Taxonomy</a>
- A Basic Taxonomy for the Cougar, one alternative among many
potential classifications</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#NCBI_Taxonomy" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#NCBI_Taxonomy</a>
- The NCBI Taxonomy for Cougar, or starting at the lowest available
clade</div>
<div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#OriginalDescription" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/mCcSp#OriginalDescription</a>
- The Original Description of the Cougar, ideally with links to the PDF
or BHL URI.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here is how a subset of these would relate to the new
#Population Tag and related semantic entities.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This tag is used an individual organism that that is an
instance
of the species concept pecies concept RDF.</div>
</div>
</div></div><div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div>This allows you to refer to a individual cougar in a way
that is
separate from the concept of cougar and retains links to other data
relating to that species concept.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<txn:SpeciesIndividualTag rdf:about="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Individual" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Individual</a>"></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:title>A Tag for individuals of the species concept Puma
concolor se:v6n7p</dcterms:title></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<skos:prefLabel>A Tag-like resource that is used to label
individuals of the species concept Puma concolor
se:v6n7p</skos:prefLabel></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:identifier><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Individual" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Individual</a></dcterms:identifier></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:description>A lightweight tag that can be used to label
individuals of this species. These allow individual organisms to be
modeled as instances of SpeciesIndividualTag</dcterms:description></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<wdrs:describedby rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
</txn:SpeciesIndividualTag></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Add a tag for a species population to the species concept
RDF.</div>
<div>This allows you to refer to a population of cougars in a
way
that is separate for an individual cougar and retains links to other
data relating to that species concept.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<txn:SpeciesPopulationTag rdf:about="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population</a>"></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:title>A Tag for populations of the species concept Puma
concolor se:v6n7p</dcterms:title></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<skos:prefLabel>A Tag-like resource that is used to label
populations of the species concept Puma concolor
se:v6n7p</skos:prefLabel></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:identifier><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population</a></dcterms:identifier></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:description>A lightweight tag that can be used to label
populations of this species. These allow populations of a species to be
modeled as instances of SpeciesIndividualTag</dcterms:description></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Species</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<wdrs:describedby rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.rdf</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
</txn:SpeciesPopulationTag></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is the RDF for a population, it has as one of it's
parts an
individual organism.</div>
<div>It is typed to indicate that it refers to a population of
Cougars.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<owl:Class rdf:about="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/pops/NorthAmericanCougarPopulation" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/pops/NorthAmericanCougarPopulation</a>"></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p#Population</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<skos:prefLabel>The population of North American Cougars Puma
concolor se:v6n7 </skos:prefLabel></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="<a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/51cd124d-78c5-40aa-a7ff-2e3f58ca6ade#Individual" target="_blank">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/51cd124d-78c5-40aa-a7ff-2e3f58ca6ade#Individual</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
<wdrs:describedby rdf:resource="<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/pops/NorthAmericanCougarPopulation.rdf" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/pops/NorthAmericanCougarPopulation.rdf</a>"/></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">
</owl:Class></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Respectfully,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Pete</div><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></p></div></div><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Pete DeVries</font></p>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Department of Entomology</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">University of Wisconsin -
Madison</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">445 Russell Laboratories</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">1630 Linden Drive</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Madison, WI 53706</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Email: <a href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a></font></p>
<p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><span><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept </a></span><span> &
<a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank"><span>GeoSpecies</span></a> Knowledge Bases</span></font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">A Semantic Web, <a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank"><span>Linked
Open Data </span></a> Project</font></p><p><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></p>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<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: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-6707" value="+16153436707" target="_blank">(615) 343-6707</a>
<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<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>
Email: <a href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept</a> & <a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies</a> Knowledge
Bases<br>
A Semantic Web, <a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">Linked Open Data</a> Project<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<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: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-6707" value="+16153436707" target="_blank">(615) 343-6707</a>
<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<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>
Email: <a href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept</a> & <a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies</a> Knowledge
Bases<br>
A Semantic Web, <a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">Linked Open Data</a> Project<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div></div></div>
<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: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-6707" value="+16153436707" target="_blank">(615) 343-6707</a>
<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">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><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>
Email: <a href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept</a> & <a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies</a> Knowledge Bases<br>
A Semantic Web, <a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">Linked Open Data</a> Project<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>