Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

Richard Pyle deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Mon Nov 7 00:05:59 CET 2005


Understood, and thanks!

We do seem to be arriving at some sort of consensus, which is refreshing!

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
> [mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald Hobern
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 11:48 PM
> To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I never meant my post to come across as a criticism of your level
> of detail
> (or anyone else's).  I believe that all of the messages that have
> been sent
> contribute to an understanding of the problem space that a GUID solution
> must address.  I just wanted to limit expectations as to what we
> could hope
> to solve within these discussions.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Donald
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org)
> Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
> [mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: 07 November 2005 10:37
> To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
>
> Thanks, Donald -- and my apologies for interpreting too much
> detail in your
> request. The question of whether concepts need their own GUIDs, vs. being
> represented by Name-GUID+Publication-GUID, as posed in your
> original Post on
> this "Topic 3", seemed to me a more specific question than the
> issue of what
> a "Name" object is or should be -- so I had calibrated my level of
> specificity in my response too precisely.
>
> I understand and agree that the focus should be broader at this
> stage, and I
> will re-calibrate the level of specificity of my comments accordingly.
>
> > For example, Yde's suggestions about
> > fundamentally different expectations among zoologists and
> > botanists need to be addressed in the TCS group.
>
> It was discussed among the TCS group -- at GREAT length.  There seems no
> easy answer, other than "different solutions for different Codes", which
> seems to me to be the genesis of a terrible future legacy....
>
> It all boils down to the distinction of which attributes apply to a Name
> object, vs. which apply to usage instances.  The botanical approach stacks
> more attributes on the Name object, whereas the zoological
> approach tends to
> put them more on the usage instances.  But as you suggest, this
> is something
> best saved for a Taxonomy GUID subgroup discussion.
>
> In any case, thanks for your clarification of the focus.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html




More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list