<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
My email access has been sporadic since this thread developed, so at
this point I'll respond to points made in several of the messages.
<br>
<br>
First, I should note that there has been previous discussion on this
list on a similar topic from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html</a>
through
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html</a>.
One
can review what was said at that time rather quickly by starting on
the first linked message and clicking on the
"Next Message" link until you get to the end of the range I gave
above. <br>
<br>
My reason for the request for information that started this thread
was that I wanted to link to a URI that would anchor the name
portion of a name/sensu pair (TNU or Taxon Concept a la TCS if you
prefer) as in this RDF snippet:<br>
<br>
<pre id="line36"> <<span class="start-tag">tc:nameString</span>>Quercus rubra L.</<span class="end-tag">tc:nameString</span>>
<<span class="start-tag">tc:hasName</span><span class="attribute-name"> rdf:about</span>=<span class="attribute-value"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439">"http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439"</a>/</span>>
</pre>
At this point in the discussion, I'm not actually talking about
creating a link to a taxon concept but rather to a taxon name, so
some of the issues Pete raised don't apply here (e.g. what's the
"right" name for a concept - the question here is simply what's a
stable identifier for the name) . In principle, I could probably
just provide the name string and be done with it. However, having
some degree of faith that Smart, Computer Savvy People might some
day be able to use the metadata returned by the URI (or perhaps
metadata which they already have in a triple store onsite) to do
cool things like knowing that my name is the same as an orthographic
variant or that "Quercus rubra L." is basically the same thing as
"Quercus rubra", I would like to also provide a functional URI. <br>
<br>
As an end -user who isn't very interested in the technical issues
involving names, I don't really care what URI I use. I would prefer
for it to be widely recognized and for it to "work" (i.e. be
resolvable). In the earlier (January) thread, there was discussion
about existing identifiers. There were a number of posts, but in
particular
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.html</a>
discussed the relative merits of ITIS and uBio ID numbers. My
take-home message from this was that uBio represented the largest
single set of names with assigned identifiers (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sources">http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sources</a> cited in Pete's email) and
that uBio metadata provides useful references. Hence my interest in
referencing uBio ids as a URI. However, as a practical matter, the
organizations that I share images with either want ITIS TSNs (EOL
and Morphbank) or just names (Discover Life). Nobody is asking for
uBio identifiers or any other identifier. <br>
<br>
I found Kevin's comment at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html</a>
very thought-provoking: "My thoughts are that the most likely way
this will be solved is by standard market type pressures - ie the
best solution/IDs will be used the most and 'float' to the top."
I'm not going to make a judgment about what is the "best" solution
or ID. But I would say that in "computer" history, being the "best"
doesn't necessarily mean that something will be used. Take for
example, the FOAF vocabulary. What the heck is Friend of a Friend?
I would venture to say that most of the people using the FOAF
vocabulary don't know or care. The FOAF vocabulary was the one that
people started to use and once that happened, people didn't switch
even if there was something better. I'm not familiar with the
history of other stuff like YouTube and Craig's List, but I would
guess that they weren't necessarily "the best" systems - they were
just the one that the most people started using first and once that
happened, people didn't switch. I'm using ITIS IDs because they are
easy to get and the people I communicate with want them. Whether
they are the "best" or "done correctly" doesn't matter to me as much
as the fact that that they are widely recognized and stable (and
that thus far every name that I've looked for has been in their
database). <br>
<br>
I think that one reason why this question has been on my mind is
that I've been waiting for GNUB (Global Name Use Bank) to come out.
I'm not really up on how it is going to work, but my impression is
that it was going to be based on the Global Name Index (GNI) which
was mentioned in that earlier January thread. At that point, the
GNI names didn't have any identifiers that were exposed to the
public as permanent GUIDs. I'm assuming that if GNUB refers to GNI
names, they will have some kind of identifiers. So if that happens
how is the GUID recommendation 8 going to be followed? As Kevin
said in
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html</a>
"What I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide
... is that if you DON'T already have a record in your own database
for a taxon name/concept, then reuse an existing one. " What we
have here with GNI is a situation where none of the records have
identifiers. In my mind, the "best practice" according to
recommendation 8 would be for the GNI to reuse existing identifiers
where they exist and NOT make up new ones. This is a bit more
complicated because the ITIS identifiers (which are in common use)
don't have an http URI version that is resolvable, and while the
uBio identifiers have a resolvable http URI, it's in the form of a
proxied LSID, which I've already complained is very ugly. So I'd
like to hear some ideas about how to have "reused" identifiers in
the GNI.<br>
<br>
One thing that comes to my mind would be to have a "domain name"
like <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://purl.org/gni/">"http://purl.org/gni/"</a> or <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://purl.org/tn/">"http://purl.org/tn/"</a> ("tn" for
"taxon name") and to follow it with a namespace/id combination
similar to what is done with lsids. So for example "itis/19408" and
"ubio/448439" could be appended, creating
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408">http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408</a> and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439">http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439</a>
for "Quercus rubra L." Both URIs could point to the same RDF and
that RDF could indicate that the two identifiers are owl:sameAs . I
realize from what Bob Morris has cautioned in the past that there
are problems with owl:sameAs when the two things aren't actually the
same thing (e.g. if the uBio ID refers to a name string only but the
ITIS TSN refers to the name plus an "accepted" status and a
relationship to parent taxa). However, if there were an
understanding that the GNI only refers to name strings, then one
could still refer to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408">http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408</a> as an identifier
for the name string of the thing (whatever it is) that is referred
to by an ITIS TSN of 19408. I don't think there would be a problem
saying that and the ubio ID were "owl:sameAs". Some kind of
solution like this would allow people to easily generate a
resolvable URI for a name if they were using ITIS TSNs or uBio IDs.
If the name that one wanted to use was so obscure that it was one of
the 9.5 million names that uBio has that ITIS doesn't have, then
that name would only have the ubio version. I have no idea whether
this would be a good idea or not, but I was really cringing to think
about 19 million newly minted UUIDs appended to
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://gni.globalnames.org/">"http://gni.globalnames.org/"</a> and figuring out how to connect those
horrid things to the names and ITIS TSNs that I'm already using. I
think that I said this before, but using the purl.org domain rather
than one like <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gni.globalnames.org/">http://gni.globalnames.org/</a> would in the future allow
somebody else to take over management of providing the metadata when
the GUIDs are resolved without having to deal with issues of who
"owns" the domain name. <br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Kevin Richards wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:03894928E052DD47A5ED29BC0822619B15F7EFB3E7@donkey.landcare.ad.landcareresearch.co.nz"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Pete, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">I’m
not trying to say what you are doing is a waste of
time/impossible. I
actually think RDF + semantics are a good way forward, but
this really
implies that we need to rely on the semantics and linkages
rather than
having a SINGLE ID for a taxon name. (which is what I
thought Steve
was getting at). Each instance of a taxon name can have its
own ID and
then all these instances are connected via ontology defined
semantic
links. This seems more appropriate to me than insisting
everyone uses
the “Global Taxon Name ID X”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">In
your example of </span><i>Aedes triseriatus</i> and <i>Ochlerotatus
triseriatus</i><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">
– these are two different names so they need two different
IDs, they
may be linked by a single taxon concept, but they are
separate names.
So which of these now 3 IDs do you expect people to use, and
according
to what source??<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">For
example if we have a name, eg the Robin, Erithacus rubecula,
mentioned
in IT IS (TSN : 559964) and also in EOL (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.eol.org/pages/1051567">www.eol.org/pages/1051567</a>),
also
in GBIF (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780">http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780</a>),
also
in avibase (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D">http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D</a>),
which
ID are you hoping people will use?? Would you put the IT IS
ID
in your own dataset as the ID for that name – unlikely. Or
would it be
better to link them up with semantic linkages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">What
I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide
(as Steve
puts is "stop making up new identifiers when somebody else
already has
one for the thing you are talking about”) is that if you
DON’T already
have a record in your own database for a taxon name/concept,
then reuse
an existing one. NOT ditch all your current IDs and adopt
someone
else’s (especially hard considering it is so hard to work
out which if
the multitude of names ad concept IDs that directly relates
to your
taxon name).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">I
am all for limiting the number of IDs for the “same” thing,
but in some
cases it is more useful to build linkages than force this
tight
integration of data and IDs. Especially for taxon names and
concepts,
where it is complex to define if you are even talking about
the “same”
thing or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Kevin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border-style: solid none none; border-color:
rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;
border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif";"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";" lang="EN-US">
Peter DeVries [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:38 p.m.<br>
<b>To:</b> Kevin Richards<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Steve Baskauf; <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>;
Gerald Guala;
Nicolson, David; Alan J Hampson; Orrell, Thomas<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio
NamebankIDs
mapping<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kevin,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I forgot one mention some other things
that are
different about my project.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can write a simple SPARQL query to
get a
list of all the TaxonConcept's that have ITIS ids, or all
those that
have ITIS and NCBI ID's etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can do this on any SPARQL endpoint
that
hosts the data.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can download the entire data set and
run the
queries on your own endpoint.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can write a script that runs the
query and
downloads the ITIS numbers and exports them to CSV etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Pete<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Peter
DeVries
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Hi Kevin,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM,
Kevin Richards
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz"
target="_blank">RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is exactly why this problem
still exists
and will be very complex to solve - everyone says "we
should have a
single ID for a specific taxon name, there seems to be
several IDs 'out
there' that refer to the same taxon name, so Im going
to create another
ID to link them all up" - yet another ID that no one
will particularly
want to follow - you would have to get everyone to
agree that your
combinations/integration of taxon names is the best
one and hope
everyone follows it - unlikely in this domain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Isn't this kind of what the The
Plant List, and
eBird already do?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A difference being that they tie
these to a
specific name and specific classification. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Plant list is not really even
open so it is
difficult to people to adopt it in mass.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For instance, if I manage a
herbarium, how do I
easily reconcile my species list with the entities
represented in the
Plant List?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">eBird has millions of records which
implies that
they have been able to convince the observers in the
field to adopt
their system. You are correct in that there are
probably a lot of
taxonomists that don't like their list.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It differs from many of the other
classifications, but remember the system rewards them
for not agreeing.
Note the difference between the microbial taxonomists
and other
taxonomists. In the case of the microbial<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">workers, the system rewards them
for solving
problems not debating alternatives. Also, if a good
idea comes out that
will make it easier for the microbiologists to solve
the problems they
are rewarded for solving, they are less likely to care
whose idea it is.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Like the microbiologists, there are
lots of
biologists that work with species with the goal of
addressing some
non-taxonomic problem. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">They don't really care if the name
is <i>Aedes
triseriatus</i> or <i>Ochlerotatus triseriatus, </i>but
they do care that the identifier
that they connect their data to is stable.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In regards to the issue of market
forces,I
suspect (but have no knowledge of) that there were
probably decisions
made in devising these lists that have more to do with
appeasing
certain personalities that creating best list. With
the way this system
rewards people it is likely that the "correct" version
will float to
the top only after that person has passed away. I
don't have much faith
that the best system will always float to the top,
That has a lot to do
with the personalities and how the system rewards are
setup.
Theoretically, it is possible for one strong
personality or group to
force others to adopt their less than optimal solution
- at least this
seems to happen in other environments.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, there are all sorts of ways
that people
can use the publication record to rewrite history.
Simply cite the
review paper that cites the original paper. Or don't
cite it at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would have used only the ITIS TSN
but if the
name changes the ID changes. This isn't "wrong", it
just does not solve
my problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* ITIS also should add the spiders
from the
World Spider Catalog.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another issue that I think has
inhibited
adoption of a common list is that people can't agree
on a particular
name or a particular classification.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since you can model a species
concept as having
many names and many classifications why not do so?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this idea was originally
accepted, I would
not have needed to create TaxonConcept.org.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My plan has aways been to get
something that
works to solve some problems and then let some larger
group take it
over.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a sense, I am more like the
microbiologists
in that I am not being paid to solve this or debate
this problem. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am doing it because I think
something like
this is needed, and it is an interesting and
personally rewarding
puzzle.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Pete<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid;
border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color rgb(204, 204, 204); border-width:
medium medium medium 1pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;
margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
My thoughts are that the most likely way this will
be solve is by
stnadard market type pressures - ie the best
solution/IDs will be used
the most and "float" to the top. It is easy to say
that the global
taxon name data is a mess, but if you think about it
30 years ago taxon
name data were very disparate, duplicated,
unconnected, many with NO
IDs at all. So I beleive we are making progress and
that we will
continue to do so albeit at a fairly slow rate.<br>
<br>
Kevin<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><br>
<br>
"I agree. This was one of the reasons that I setup
TaxonConcept the way
I did. It attempts to connect both the LOD
entities and the foreign key
based entities."<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please consider the environment
before
printing this email<br>
Warning: This electronic message together with any
attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you
must not read, use,
disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the
sender immediately
by reply email and then delete the emails.<br>
The views expressed in this email may not be those
of Landcare Research
New Zealand Limited. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz"
target="_blank">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept</a> &
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies</a> Knowledge
Bases<br>
A Semantic Web, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">Linked
Open Data</a> Project<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pdevries@wisc.edu" target="_blank">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept</a> &
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies</a> Knowledge
Bases<br>
A Semantic Web, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">Linked Open
Data</a> Project<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr> <font color="Green" face="Arial" size="1">Please consider
the
environment before printing this email<br>
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments
is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read,
use,
disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
immediately
by reply email and then delete the emails.<br>
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare
Research
New Zealand Limited. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</a><br>
</font>
</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>