Hi David,<div><br></div><div>In cases like <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus</a> you are correct.</div><div><br></div><div>But remember how URLs are encoded so many things will not work and different system seem to treat these differently.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The space " " in the above example would need to be precent encoded.</div><div><br></div><div>I would suggest that we use underscores "_" for spaces.</div><div><br></div><div>Any spaces, accented characters, commas or parenthesis would need to be % encoded so.</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)</a> => <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_%28Linnaeus_1758%29">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_%28Linnaeus_1758%29</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Try pasting the first url into the browser and then copy it back. Depending on what browser you use it will either be % encoded or not.</div><div><br></div><div>So to the extent that the URI can be "Cool URI's <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/">http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/</a> using the name will work.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:59 AM, David Remsen (GBIF) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dremsen@gbif.org">dremsen@gbif.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Why not use the name as the basis for the resolvable identifier instead of<br>
a uuid. Isnt there a 1:1 cardinality between the name and the uuid in the<br>
GNI? Doesnt that mean that<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec</a><br>
</div>and<br>
<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Danaus_plexippus_(Linnaeus_1758)</a><br>
<br>
are equally unique? The latter is certainly more readable. In those<br>
cases where the namestring is a homonym like<br>
<br>
<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe</a><br>
<br>
couldn't you just return the addresses of the two globally unique forms of<br>
the name when you resolve it?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Smith_1899" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Smith_1899</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Jones_1900" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/Oenanthe_Jones_1900</a><br>
<br>
Wouldn't those be as globally unique and easier to read and adjust to? Or<br>
am I missing something. I always wanted to do that with ubio IDs after a<br>
back and forth with Gregor Hagedorn and wished we hadn't exposed those<br>
integers.<br>
<br>
DR<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> Hi Steve,<br>
><br>
> I don't have time to go through this in detail, and I can't speak for the<br>
> GNI, but I can tell you about how the GNI URI's work at least for now.<br>
><br>
> A while back Dima Mozzherin and I were looking into how triples etc. might<br>
> be of use to the GNI.<br>
><br>
> We needed a way to generate unique URI's for each name.<br>
><br>
> We wanted to avoid having to keep these in sync and not require everyone<br>
> to<br>
> look each ID up through some service.<br>
><br>
> Dima came up with the following plan. We use the namestring as seed to<br>
> generate a unique UUID.<br>
><br>
> Basically this is a shared algorithm which the GNI and TaxonConcept both<br>
> use. But it could be used by anyone.<br>
><br>
> You feed the name string to the algorithm and it spits out a UUID. We<br>
> append<br>
> then append that to a URI and web service so it is resolvable.<br>
><br>
> So the name Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus 1758)<br>
> => 4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec<br>
><br>
> So if the GNI and and another group have the same namestring they have the<br>
> same UUID.<br>
><br>
> People can then can link their data set to the GNI with the following URI<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec</a><br>
><br>
> RDF<br>
> <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf</a><br>
><br>
> <<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/4ef223c4-0c3e-5e84-ace9-755c34c601ec.rdf</a>>If<br>
> you think of your data set as one table and the GNI as another, this URI<br>
> serves as the foreign key that connects them together.<br>
><br>
> Some on the list don't like how these look, but there is a tremendous<br>
> advantage in not having to worry about syncing two large data sets and<br>
> determining if a given integer is already in use.<br>
><br>
> Also Rod Page has written a recently about UUID's.<br>
> <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html" target="_blank">http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html</a><br>
><br>
> <<a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html" target="_blank">http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/05/zoobank-on-couchdb-uuids-replication.html</a>>There<br>
> may be a way to do something similar with <a href="http://bit.ly" target="_blank">bit.ly</a> like identifiers that are<br>
> shorter (mCcSp), but I think it the general idea is a good one.<br>
><br>
> If you recall from my talk at TDWG, I was able to use these to make<br>
> statements that one namestring was a synonym etc. of another etc.<br>
><br>
> The algorithm we use is written in Ruby but I could be ported to many<br>
> different languages since UUIDs are widely supported.<br>
><br>
> Respectfully,<br>
><br>
> - Pete<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Steven J. Baskauf <<br>
> <a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> My email access has been sporadic since this thread developed, so at<br>
>> this<br>
>> 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<br>
>> list<br>
>> on a similar topic from<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.htmlthrough" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.htmlthrough</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html</a>.<br>
>> One can review what was said at that time rather quickly by starting on<br>
>> the<br>
>> first linked message and clicking on the "Next Message" link until you<br>
>> get<br>
>> to the end of the range I gave above.<br>
>><br>
>> My reason for the request for information that started this thread was<br>
>> that<br>
>> I wanted to link to a URI that would anchor the name portion of a<br>
>> name/sensu<br>
>> pair (TNU or Taxon Concept a la TCS if you prefer) as in this RDF<br>
>> snippet:<br>
>><br>
>> <tc:nameString>Quercus rubra L.</tc:nameString><br>
>> <tc:hasName<br>
>> rdf:about="<a href="http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439" target="_blank">http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439</a>"<br>
>> <<a href="http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439" target="_blank">http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439</a>>/><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> At this point in the discussion, I'm not actually talking about creating<br>
>> a<br>
>> link to a taxon concept but rather to a taxon name, so some of the<br>
>> issues<br>
>> Pete raised don't apply here (e.g. what's the "right" name for a concept<br>
>> -<br>
>> the question here is simply what's a stable identifier for the name) .<br>
>> In<br>
>> principle, I could probably just provide the name string and be done<br>
>> with<br>
>> it. However, having some degree of faith that Smart, Computer Savvy<br>
>> People<br>
>> might some day be able to use the metadata returned by the URI (or<br>
>> perhaps<br>
>> metadata which they already have in a triple store onsite) to do cool<br>
>> things<br>
>> like knowing that my name is the same as an orthographic variant or that<br>
>> "Quercus rubra L." is basically the same thing as "Quercus rubra", I<br>
>> would<br>
>> like to also provide a functional URI.<br>
>><br>
>> As an end -user who isn't very interested in the technical issues<br>
>> involving<br>
>> names, I don't really care what URI I use. I would prefer for it to be<br>
>> widely recognized and for it to "work" (i.e. be resolvable). In the<br>
>> earlier<br>
>> (January) thread, there was discussion about existing identifiers.<br>
>> There<br>
>> were a number of posts, but in particular<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.htmldiscussed" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.htmldiscussed</a><br>
>> the relative merits of ITIS and uBio ID numbers. My take-home<br>
>> message from this was that uBio represented the largest single set of<br>
>> names<br>
>> with assigned identifiers (see<br>
</div></div>>> <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sourcescited" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sourcescited</a> in Pete's email) and that<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">>> uBio metadata provides useful references.<br>
>> Hence my interest in referencing uBio ids as a URI. However, as a<br>
>> practical<br>
>> matter, the organizations that I share images with either want ITIS TSNs<br>
>> (EOL and Morphbank) or just names (Discover Life). Nobody is asking for<br>
>> uBio identifiers or any other identifier.<br>
>><br>
>> I found Kevin's comment at<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html</a> very<br>
>> thought-provoking: "My thoughts are that the most likely way this will<br>
>> be<br>
>> solved is by standard market type pressures - ie the best solution/IDs<br>
>> will<br>
>> be used the most and 'float' to the top." I'm not going to make a<br>
>> judgment<br>
>> about what is the "best" solution or ID. But I would say that in<br>
>> "computer"<br>
>> history, being the "best" doesn't necessarily mean that something will<br>
>> be<br>
>> used. Take for example, the FOAF vocabulary. What the heck is Friend<br>
>> of a<br>
>> Friend? I would venture to say that most of the people using the FOAF<br>
>> vocabulary don't know or care. The FOAF vocabulary was the one that<br>
>> people<br>
>> started to use and once that happened, people didn't switch even if<br>
>> there<br>
>> was something better. I'm not familiar with the history of other stuff<br>
>> like<br>
>> YouTube and Craig's List, but I would guess that they weren't<br>
>> necessarily<br>
>> "the best" systems - they were just the one that the most people started<br>
>> using first and once that happened, people didn't switch. I'm using<br>
>> ITIS<br>
>> IDs because they are easy to get and the people I communicate with want<br>
>> them. Whether they are the "best" or "done correctly" doesn't matter to<br>
>> me<br>
>> as much as the fact that that they are widely recognized and stable (and<br>
>> that thus far every name that I've looked for has been in their<br>
>> database).<br>
>><br>
>> I think that one reason why this question has been on my mind is that<br>
>> I've<br>
>> been waiting for GNUB (Global Name Use Bank) to come out. I'm not<br>
>> really up<br>
>> on how it is going to work, but my impression is that it was going to be<br>
>> based on the Global Name Index (GNI) which was mentioned in that earlier<br>
>> January thread. At that point, the GNI names didn't have any<br>
>> identifiers<br>
>> that were exposed to the public as permanent GUIDs. I'm assuming that<br>
>> if<br>
>> GNUB refers to GNI names, they will have some kind of identifiers. So<br>
>> if<br>
>> that happens how is the GUID recommendation 8 going to be followed? As<br>
>> Kevin said in<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html</a> "What<br>
>> I<br>
>> take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide ... is that<br>
>> if<br>
>> you DON'T already have a record in your own database for a taxon<br>
>> name/concept, then reuse an existing one. " What we have here with GNI<br>
>> is<br>
>> a situation where none of the records have identifiers. In my mind, the<br>
>> "best practice" according to recommendation 8 would be for the GNI to<br>
>> reuse<br>
>> existing identifiers where they exist and NOT make up new ones. This is<br>
>> a<br>
>> bit more complicated because the ITIS identifiers (which are in common<br>
>> use)<br>
>> don't have an http URI version that is resolvable, and while the uBio<br>
>> identifiers have a resolvable http URI, it's in the form of a proxied<br>
>> LSID,<br>
>> which I've already complained is very ugly. So I'd like to hear some<br>
>> ideas<br>
>> 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<br>
</div></div>>> "<a href="http://purl.org/gni/" target="_blank">http://purl.org/gni/</a>" <<a href="http://purl.org/gni/" target="_blank">http://purl.org/gni/</a>> or<br>
>> "<a href="http://purl.org/tn/" target="_blank">http://purl.org/tn/</a>"<<a href="http://purl.org/tn/" target="_blank">http://purl.org/tn/</a>>("tn" for "taxon name") and to<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">>> follow it with a namespace/id combination<br>
>> similar to what is done with lsids. So for example "itis/19408" and<br>
>> "ubio/448439" could be appended, creating<br>
>> <a href="http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408and" target="_blank">http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408and</a><br>
>> <a href="http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439" target="_blank">http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439</a> for "Quercus rubra L." Both URIs could<br>
>> point to the same RDF and that RDF could indicate that the two<br>
>> identifiers<br>
>> are owl:sameAs . I realize from what Bob Morris has cautioned in the<br>
>> past<br>
>> that there are problems with owl:sameAs when the two things aren't<br>
>> actually<br>
>> the same thing (e.g. if the uBio ID refers to a name string only but the<br>
>> ITIS TSN refers to the name plus an "accepted" status and a relationship<br>
>> to<br>
>> parent taxa). However, if there were an understanding that the GNI only<br>
>> refers to name strings, then one could still refer to<br>
>> <a href="http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408" target="_blank">http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408</a> as an identifier for the name string of<br>
>> the<br>
>> thing (whatever it is) that is referred to by an ITIS TSN of 19408. I<br>
>> don't<br>
>> think there would be a problem saying that and the ubio ID were<br>
>> "owl:sameAs". Some kind of solution like this would allow people to<br>
>> easily<br>
>> generate a resolvable URI for a name if they were using ITIS TSNs or<br>
>> uBio<br>
>> IDs. If the name that one wanted to use was so obscure that it was one<br>
>> of<br>
>> the 9.5 million names that uBio has that ITIS doesn't have, then that<br>
>> name<br>
>> would only have the ubio version. I have no idea whether this would be<br>
>> a<br>
>> good idea or not, but I was really cringing to think about 19 million<br>
>> newly<br>
>> minted UUIDs appended to<br>
</div></div>>> "<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/</a>"<<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/</a>>and figuring<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">>> out how to connect those horrid things to the names and ITIS<br>
>> TSNs that I'm already using. I think that I said this before, but using<br>
>> the<br>
>> <a href="http://purl.org" target="_blank">purl.org</a> domain rather than one like <a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/" target="_blank">http://gni.globalnames.org/</a> would<br>
>> in<br>
>> the future allow somebody else to take over management of providing the<br>
>> metadata when the GUIDs are resolved without having to deal with issues<br>
>> of<br>
>> who "owns" the domain name.<br>
>><br>
>> Steve<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kevin Richards wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Pete,<br>
>><br>
>> I’m not trying to say what you are doing is a waste of time/impossible.<br>
>> I<br>
>> actually think RDF + semantics are a good way forward, but this really<br>
>> implies that we need to rely on the semantics and linkages rather than<br>
>> having a SINGLE ID for a taxon name. (which is what I thought Steve was<br>
>> getting at). Each instance of a taxon name can have its own ID and then<br>
>> all<br>
>> these instances are connected via ontology defined semantic links. This<br>
>> seems more appropriate to me than insisting everyone uses the “Global<br>
>> Taxon<br>
>> Name ID X”.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In your example of *Aedes triseriatus* and *Ochlerotatus triseriatus* –<br>
>> these are two different names so they need two different IDs, they may<br>
>> be<br>
>> linked by a single taxon concept, but they are separate names. So which<br>
>> of<br>
>> these now 3 IDs do you expect people to use, and according to what<br>
>> source??<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> For example if we have a name, eg the Robin, Erithacus rubecula,<br>
>> mentioned<br>
>> in IT IS (TSN : 559964) and also in EOL (<a href="http://www.eol.org/pages/1051567" target="_blank">www.eol.org/pages/1051567</a>),<br>
>> also<br>
>> in GBIF (<a href="http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780" target="_blank">http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780</a>), also in avibase (<br>
>> <a href="http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D" target="_blank">http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D</a>),<br>
>> which<br>
>> ID are you hoping people will use?? Would you put the IT IS ID in your<br>
>> own<br>
>> dataset as the ID for that name – unlikely. Or would it be better to<br>
>> link<br>
>> them up with semantic linkages.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> What I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide (as<br>
>> Steve<br>
>> puts is "stop making up new identifiers when somebody else already has<br>
>> one<br>
>> for the thing you are talking about”) is that if you DON’T already have<br>
>> a<br>
>> record in your own database for a taxon name/concept, then reuse an<br>
>> existing<br>
>> one. NOT ditch all your current IDs and adopt someone else’s<br>
>> (especially<br>
>> hard considering it is so hard to work out which if the multitude of<br>
>> names<br>
>> ad concept IDs that directly relates to your taxon name).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am all for limiting the number of IDs for the “same” thing, but in<br>
>> some<br>
>> cases it is more useful to build linkages than force this tight<br>
>> integration<br>
>> of data and IDs. Especially for taxon names and concepts, where it is<br>
>> complex to define if you are even talking about the “same” thing or not.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kevin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *From:* Peter DeVries<br>
</div></div>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>>]<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">>><br>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:38 p.m.<br>
>> *To:* Kevin Richards<br>
>> *Cc:* Steve Baskauf; <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>; Gerald Guala;<br>
>> Nicolson,<br>
>> David; Alan J Hampson; Orrell, Thomas<br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi Kevin,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I forgot one mention some other things that are different about my<br>
>> project.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You can write a simple SPARQL query to get a list of all the<br>
>> TaxonConcept's<br>
>> that have ITIS ids, or all those that have ITIS and NCBI ID's etc.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You can do this on any SPARQL endpoint that hosts the data.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You can download the entire data set and run the queries on your own<br>
>> endpoint.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> You can write a script that runs the query and downloads the ITIS<br>
>> numbers<br>
>> and exports them to CSV etc.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> - Pete<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Peter DeVries <<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Kevin,<br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Richards <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz">RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> This is exactly why this problem still exists and will be very complex<br>
>> to<br>
>> solve - everyone says "we should have a single ID for a specific taxon<br>
>> name,<br>
>> there seems to be several IDs 'out there' that refer to the same taxon<br>
>> name,<br>
>> so Im going to create another ID to link them all up" - yet another ID<br>
>> that<br>
>> no one will particularly want to follow - you would have to get everyone<br>
>> to<br>
>> agree that your combinations/integration of taxon names is the best one<br>
>> and<br>
>> hope everyone follows it - unlikely in this domain.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Isn't this kind of what the The Plant List, and eBird already do?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> A difference being that they tie these to a specific name and specific<br>
>> classification.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The Plant list is not really even open so it is difficult to people to<br>
>> adopt it in mass.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> For instance, if I manage a herbarium, how do I easily reconcile my<br>
>> species<br>
>> list with the entities represented in the Plant List?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> eBird has millions of records which implies that they have been able to<br>
>> convince the observers in the field to adopt their system. You are<br>
>> correct<br>
>> in that there are probably a lot of taxonomists that don't like their<br>
>> list.<br>
>><br>
>> It differs from many of the other classifications, but remember the<br>
>> system<br>
>> rewards them for not agreeing. Note the difference between the microbial<br>
>> taxonomists and other taxonomists. In the case of the microbial<br>
>><br>
>> workers, the system rewards them for solving problems not debating<br>
>> alternatives. Also, if a good idea comes out that will make it easier<br>
>> for<br>
>> the microbiologists to solve the problems they are rewarded for solving,<br>
>> they are less likely to care whose idea it is.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Like the microbiologists, there are lots of biologists that work with<br>
>> species with the goal of addressing some non-taxonomic problem.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> They don't really care if the name is *Aedes triseriatus* or<br>
>> *Ochlerotatus<br>
>> triseriatus, *but they do care that the identifier that they connect<br>
>> their<br>
>> data to is stable.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In regards to the issue of market forces,I suspect (but have no<br>
>> knowledge<br>
>> of) that there were probably decisions made in devising these lists that<br>
>> have more to do with appeasing certain personalities that creating best<br>
>> list. With the way this system rewards people it is likely that the<br>
>> "correct" version will float to the top only after that person has<br>
>> passed<br>
>> away. I don't have much faith that the best system will always float to<br>
>> the<br>
>> top, That has a lot to do with the personalities and how the system<br>
>> rewards<br>
>> are setup. Theoretically, it is possible for one strong personality or<br>
>> group<br>
>> to force others to adopt their less than optimal solution - at least<br>
>> this<br>
>> seems to happen in other environments.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Also, there are all sorts of ways that people can use the publication<br>
>> record to rewrite history. Simply cite the review paper that cites the<br>
>> original paper. Or don't cite it at all.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I would have used only the ITIS TSN but if the name changes the ID<br>
>> changes.<br>
>> This isn't "wrong", it just does not solve my problem.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> * ITIS also should add the spiders from the World Spider Catalog.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Another issue that I think has inhibited adoption of a common list is<br>
>> that<br>
>> people can't agree on a particular name or a particular classification.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Since you can model a species concept as having many names and many<br>
>> classifications why not do so?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> If this idea was originally accepted, I would not have needed to create<br>
>> TaxonConcept.org.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> My plan has aways been to get something that works to solve some<br>
>> problems<br>
>> and then let some larger group take it over.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In a sense, I am more like the microbiologists in that I am not being<br>
>> paid<br>
>> to solve this or debate this problem.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I am doing it because I think something like this is needed, and it is<br>
>> an<br>
>> interesting and personally rewarding puzzle.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> - Pete<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> My thoughts are that the most likely way this will be solve is by<br>
>> stnadard<br>
>> market type pressures - ie the best solution/IDs will be used the most<br>
>> and<br>
>> "float" to the top. It is easy to say that the global taxon name data<br>
>> is a<br>
>> mess, but if you think about it 30 years ago taxon name data were very<br>
>> disparate, duplicated, unconnected, many with NO IDs at all. So I<br>
>> beleive<br>
>> we are making progress and that we will continue to do so albeit at a<br>
>> fairly<br>
>> slow rate.<br>
>><br>
>> Kevin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> "I agree. This was one of the reasons that I setup TaxonConcept the way<br>
>> I<br>
>> did. It attempts to connect both the LOD entities and the foreign key<br>
>> based<br>
>> entities."<br>
>><br>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email<br>
>> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is<br>
>> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,<br>
>> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately<br>
>> by<br>
>> reply email and then delete the emails.<br>
>> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research<br>
>> New<br>
>> Zealand Limited. <a href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz" target="_blank">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<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">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
</div></div>>> TaxonConcept <<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">http://www.taxonconcept.org/</a>> &<br>
>> GeoSpecies<<a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">http://about.geospecies.org/</a>> Knowledge<br>
>> Bases<br>
>> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <<a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">http://linkeddata.org/</a>> Project<br>
<div class="im">>><br>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<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">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
</div>>> TaxonConcept <<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">http://www.taxonconcept.org/</a>> &<br>
>> GeoSpecies<<a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">http://about.geospecies.org/</a>> Knowledge<br>
>> Bases<br>
>> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <<a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">http://linkeddata.org/</a>> Project<br>
<div class="im">>><br>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email<br>
>> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is<br>
>> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,<br>
>> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately<br>
>> by<br>
>> reply email and then delete the emails.<br>
>> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research<br>
>> New<br>
>> Zealand Limited. <a href="http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz" target="_blank">http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer<br>
>> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences<br>
>><br>
>> postal mail address:<br>
>> VU Station B 351634<br>
>> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.<br>
>><br>
>> delivery address:<br>
>> 2125 Stevenson Center<br>
>> 1161 21st Ave., S.<br>
>> Nashville, TN 37235<br>
>><br>
>> office: 2128 Stevenson Center<br>
>> phone: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: (615)<br>
</div>>> 343-6707<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a><br>
<div class="im">>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><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">pdevries@wisc.edu</a><br>
</div>> TaxonConcept <<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">http://www.taxonconcept.org/</a>> &<br>
> GeoSpecies<<a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">http://about.geospecies.org/</a>> Knowledge<br>
> Bases<br>
> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <<a href="http://linkeddata.org/" target="_blank">http://linkeddata.org/</a>> Project<br>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<div class="im">> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
</div><div class="im">> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
David Remsen, Senior Programme Officer<br>
Electronic Catalog of Names of Known Organisms<br>
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat<br>
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B45-35321472" value="+4535321472">+45-35321472</a> Fax: <a href="tel:%2B45-35321480" value="+4535321480">+45-35321480</a><br>
Skype: dremsen<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>