Hi RIch,<div><br></div><div>These were the very issue that we had talked about modeling last fall and I thought we were planning to work on after the holidays.</div><div><br></div><div>Check your old email I have your prototype fish list.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps SKOS:narrower?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/Pomacanthidae.html">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/Pomacanthidae.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/Pomacanthidae.html"></a>Respectfully,</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Pete<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:46 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;">
Alas, I don't have time to dive-in to this conversation in full (I still owe<br>
too many things to too many people), though I have been very tempted!<br>
<br>
Very quickly:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The model supports links to alternative concepts. The uniprot and bio2rdf,<br>
and DBpedia<br>
> URI's can be considered closely related concepts.<br>
> The way this works ideally is that the identifier of this insect (from<br>
TDWG) makes the assertion that<br>
> this<br>
observation <a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc
6552.html" target="_blank">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc<br>
6552.html</a><br>
</div>> represents an instance of this<br>
<div class="im">concept <a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species</a><br>
<br>
</div>But if I understand you correctly, alternate concepts don't exist within<br>
<a href="http://taxonconcept.org" target="_blank">taxonconcept.org</a>; but only as links to other repositories of concepts, that<br>
may or may not be congruent with those represented in <a href="http://taxonconcept.org" target="_blank">taxonconcept.org</a>. If<br>
that's the case, then what happens when the person who identifies the<br>
observation<br>
[<a href="http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html" target="_blank">http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html</a>]<br>
doesn't agree with the concept represented in<br>
[<a href="http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species" target="_blank">http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species</a>] -- or any other concept<br>
represented in <a href="http://taxonconcept.org" target="_blank">taxonconcept.org</a>? Do they have to hunt around through the<br>
other repositories to find the right one?<br>
<br>
Let me give an example. The type specimen of Centropyge fisheri was<br>
collected in Hawaii (e.g.,<br>
<a href="http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1377454029" target="_blank">http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1377454029</a> ). The type<br>
specimen of C. flavicauda was collected in the South China Sea, and is<br>
known throughout the rest of the tropical Pacific (e.g.,<br>
<a href="http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1339602635" target="_blank">http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1339602635</a>).<br>
<br>
Many taxonomists have treated these two species as distinct and valid; and<br>
hence two separate taxon concepts representing populations in Hawaii, and in<br>
the broader Pacific, respectively. Other taxonomists have considered them<br>
to be conspecific, and thus only one species throughout the tropical<br>
Pacific, including Hawaii. The name "fisheri" has priority, so the concept<br>
labeled as "Centropyge fisheri, sensu stricto" refers to the species concept<br>
consisting of individuals from Hawaii, and the concept labeled as<br>
"Centropyge fisheri, sensu lato" refers to the species concept consisting of<br>
individuals throughout the tropical Pacific (including Hawaii).<br>
<br>
If I understand you correctly, there would be only one of these two concepts<br>
represented in <a href="http://taxonconcept.org" target="_blank">taxonconcept.org</a>. For the sake of argument, let's say it was<br>
the sensu lato concept (which is the more modern interpretation, lumping the<br>
two historically distinct species). What if someone made an observation in<br>
Johnston Atoll, and they are a splitter (i.e. recognizing Hawaii C. fisheri<br>
as a distinct species from Pacific C. flavicauda), and wanted to identify<br>
their specimen to the concept that *excludes* the Hawaii population (i.e.,<br>
C. flavicauda)? Would they be able to do so? Or would they have to look<br>
through uniprot and bio2rdf, DBpedia, etc. to find a species-level concept<br>
that matches the one they want to represent the observation as?<br>
<br>
Apologies if I have completely misunderstood this conversation...but at the<br>
very least, perhaps a concrete example (with pictures!) might help to<br>
disambiguate some of this thread.<br>
<br>
Aloha,<br>
Rich<br>
<br>
<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>