GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
Roger Hyam
roger at TDWG.ORG
Sun Nov 13 09:24:56 CET 2005
Hi Rich,
"But we probably can agree on what a usage instance is."
Could you attempt a concise definition of a UsageInstance we can all agree on then :)
All the best,
Roger
Richard Pyle wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> Many thanks! This is helpful.
>
>
>> I think you are wrong in your conclusions that we do not need
>> GUIDs for TaxonNames and TaxonObjects
>>
>
> You are mistaken if you believe that I don't think we need GUIDs for
> TaxonName objects. I *do* think we need them. I just believe that we will
> do more harm than good if we encourage a proliferation of separate
> Name-GUIDs and Concept-GUIDs, when there is not a clear distinction between
> them. If we recognize two distinct "kinds" of GUIDs, with the realization
> that the same informational object (e.g., a new combination) would be
> represented by one data provider as one "kind" of GUID, and by another data
> provider as the other "kind" of GUID, then I think we are setting ourselves
> up for some really thorny data management issues down the road.
>
>
>> I need to do diagrams
>> to illustrate the case so have created a wiki page here:
>>
>> http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=SeparateNamesAndConcepts
>>
>
> This is excellent and I will expand upon it in the Wiki to reflect the point
> I am trying to make as soon as I have time.
>
>
>>> Yes, you could certainly force-treat zoological names as though they
>>>
> were
>
>>> botanical names (treating new combinations as "new names"), just as you
>>> could easily force-treat botanical names as though they were zoological
>>> names (assigning TaxonName GUIDs only to basionyms, and representing new
>>> combincations via Usage/TaxonConcept GUIDs). I just believe that we
>>>
> will
>
>>> come to regret it if we leave the distinction "fuzzy".
>>>
>> I am not suggesting we leave it fuzzy I am suggesting we leave it up to
>> the nomenclators and that it isn't a GUID issue.
>>
>
> It is a GUID issue if there are two different "kinds" of GUID established,
> without a clear distinction between them. And I think the current
> distinction between whether a data provider sould establish a TaxonConcept
> GUID or a TaxonName GUID for a given data record is "fuzzy".
>
>
>> Just because we are not solving the problem here does not mean that
>> we are not going to get the problem solved.
>>
>
> Yes, but we may be creating a new problem, or exacerbating an existing
> problem, by introducing different kinds of GUIDs without a clear
> understanding of which types of GUIDs apply to which kinds of data objects.
>
>
>> Then don't refer to the TaxonName GUIDs issued by nomenclators when you
>> issue your TaxonConcepts. Just ignore the nomenclator bit. If you are
>> correct then everyone will follow your lead. A two GUID system will just
>> degrade to a one GUID system if the names thing is wrong.
>>
>
> It's not about "right" or "wrong" -- it's about optimizing the efficiency
> and effectiveness of information exchange. Encouraging the creation of
> ill-defined GUIDs carries with it a risk of impeding information exchange,
> because of ambiguities about mapping records in one dataset to records in
> another dataset.
>
>
>> Here is a definition of the two types of GUID:
>>
>> A TaxonName GUID resolves to a data object that only contains
>> information about nomenclature. The provider does not intend
>> anyone to be able to identify a specimen to this GUID.
>>
>> TaxonConcept GUIDs resolves to a data object that contains information
>> about the delimitation/circumscription/relationships of a taxon.
>> The provider intends people to be able to identify or otherwise
>> related data to this GUID.
>>
>
> As a vocal and long-standing commentator on the difference between a
> taxonomic "name" and a taxonomic "concept", I feel I have a strong grasp of
> this distinction. What concerns me on this GUID discussion is that I
> believe that ill-defined GUID "domains" ("kinds") have the potential of
> doing more harm than good. We don't all agree on what a "name" is. We
> don't all agree on what a "concept" is. But we probably can agree on what a
> usage instance is. This is why I now advocate focusing on this broadest,
> most flexible, and unambiguous of taxonomic entities to start with in
> applying TDWG-standard GUIDs to, because ALL datasets can conform to it
> (especially if the "SEC" part of the usage instance can be set to "Nobody in
> particular").
>
> I'll try to articulare this more effectively on the Wiki page you started.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
>
--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
http://www.tdwg.org
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
--------------090905080101080400090002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<pre wrap="">Hi Rich,
"But we probably can agree on what a usage instance is."
Could you attempt a concise definition of a UsageInstance we can all agree on then :)
All the best,
Roger
</pre>
<br>
Richard Pyle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midIMEKKFHEGHHDDDHKIOJEKEGKDHAA.deepreef at bishopmuseum.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Roger,
Many thanks! This is helpful.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think you are wrong in your conclusions that we do not need
GUIDs for TaxonNames and TaxonObjects
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You are mistaken if you believe that I don't think we need GUIDs for
TaxonName objects. I *do* think we need them. I just believe that we will
do more harm than good if we encourage a proliferation of separate
Name-GUIDs and Concept-GUIDs, when there is not a clear distinction between
them. If we recognize two distinct "kinds" of GUIDs, with the realization
that the same informational object (e.g., a new combination) would be
represented by one data provider as one "kind" of GUID, and by another data
provider as the other "kind" of GUID, then I think we are setting ourselves
up for some really thorny data management issues down the road.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I need to do diagrams
to illustrate the case so have created a wiki page here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=SeparateNamesAndConcepts">http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=SeparateNamesAndConcepts</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is excellent and I will expand upon it in the Wiki to reflect the point
I am trying to make as soon as I have time.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes, you could certainly force-treat zoological names as though they
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->were
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">botanical names (treating new combinations as "new names"), just as you
could easily force-treat botanical names as though they were zoological
names (assigning TaxonName GUIDs only to basionyms, and representing new
combincations via Usage/TaxonConcept GUIDs). I just believe that we
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->will
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">come to regret it if we leave the distinction "fuzzy".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I am not suggesting we leave it fuzzy I am suggesting we leave it up to
the nomenclators and that it isn't a GUID issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It is a GUID issue if there are two different "kinds" of GUID established,
without a clear distinction between them. And I think the current
distinction between whether a data provider sould establish a TaxonConcept
GUID or a TaxonName GUID for a given data record is "fuzzy".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Just because we are not solving the problem here does not mean that
we are not going to get the problem solved.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, but we may be creating a new problem, or exacerbating an existing
problem, by introducing different kinds of GUIDs without a clear
understanding of which types of GUIDs apply to which kinds of data objects.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Then don't refer to the TaxonName GUIDs issued by nomenclators when you
issue your TaxonConcepts. Just ignore the nomenclator bit. If you are
correct then everyone will follow your lead. A two GUID system will just
degrade to a one GUID system if the names thing is wrong.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It's not about "right" or "wrong" -- it's about optimizing the efficiency
and effectiveness of information exchange. Encouraging the creation of
ill-defined GUIDs carries with it a risk of impeding information exchange,
because of ambiguities about mapping records in one dataset to records in
another dataset.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Here is a definition of the two types of GUID:
A TaxonName GUID resolves to a data object that only contains
information about nomenclature. The provider does not intend
anyone to be able to identify a specimen to this GUID.
TaxonConcept GUIDs resolves to a data object that contains information
about the delimitation/circumscription/relationships of a taxon.
The provider intends people to be able to identify or otherwise
related data to this GUID.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As a vocal and long-standing commentator on the difference between a
taxonomic "name" and a taxonomic "concept", I feel I have a strong grasp of
this distinction. What concerns me on this GUID discussion is that I
believe that ill-defined GUID "domains" ("kinds") have the potential of
doing more harm than good. We don't all agree on what a "name" is. We
don't all agree on what a "concept" is. But we probably can agree on what a
usage instance is. This is why I now advocate focusing on this broadest,
most flexible, and unambiguous of taxonomic entities to start with in
applying TDWG-standard GUIDs to, because ALL datasets can conform to it
(especially if the "SEC" part of the usage instance can be set to "Nobody in
particular").
I'll try to articulare this more effectively on the Wiki page you started.
Aloha,
Rich
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org">http://www.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:roger at tdwg.org">roger at tdwg.org</a>
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list