August 2013 - tdwg-content

Re: [tdwg-content] If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class
by Nico Franz 05 Jun '25

05 Jun '25

Hello all: I have a few inserted comments, hopefully with some clarifying effect: On 5/4/2011 10:54 AM, Peter DeVries wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I may have overloaded the term specimen to make the explanation easier > to follow. > > A specimen could be an individual or it could be part of an individual. > > To some extent you need to think about how these models will be used. > > If you subscribe to the model that a species is whatever a taxonomists > says it is then it is difficult to make statements like. > > X% of the world's species will be extinct by 2050. > > If you mean a species as defined by the concept documented at this URI > which is supported by these specimens, images, and DNA then you are on > firmer ground. > > Species in the natural world do a pretty good job recognizing those > individuals that are appropriate mates. In other words members of > their own species. > > Are we modeling species or variations in human conceptualizations of > species? > >> Assuming that there was only one individual organism identified >> there is really one one species (or hybrid). > Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Please Nico C., don't take this one up! > > > I stick with this. Assuming you don't have a hybrid individual. That > individual is one species. The fact that human may disagree on what > species it is a human issue. > > Again, Are we modeling species or variations in human > conceptualizations of species? NMF: I believe there is a history of biodiversity database engineering that actually led some people, initially in Australia (Greg Whitbread?) and Europe (Berendsohn's group) to place more emphasis on modeling human conceptualizations of taxa. I understand this happened in the late 80s / early 90s. The motivation was, apparently, that no long-term consensus seemed available to model a single and sufficiently widely accepted taxonomy of, say, Central European vascular plant species or mosses. I believe that projects such as the Euro + Med PlantBase (http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html) are examples of the persistence (success?) of this 20+ year old practice. I think this is the kind of background that Steve is referring to. > > Which of these is of primary importance to decision makers and > non-taxonomist biologists? > Part of the problem with various publications relating to ontologies > and taxonomy is that their species models entail a specific > phylogenetic hypothesis. > > In the real world taxa are not as clean as some would like to make > them out to be. > > Each individual is a unique combination of thousands of separate gene > lineages which often do not follow clean monophyletic paths. > > I would argue that most of those who work with species related data > see them as useful typological constructs which in general follow the > biological species model. NMF: The solution of how to properly model things such as species in RDF, OWL (etc.) should ideally accommodate all "species concepts" (BCS, ESC, PSC, GSC, there's dozens), i.e. it should be neutral towards this issue. The examples below are too simple, ignoring for example cases such as pro parte synonymy, or a concept ("species") that appears unique and monophyletic to one author but (vastly) polyphyletic to another. To do an accurate mapping in that latter case (which is not super-common but it's real), I think one would have to come down on saying we're modeling human conceptualizations. They are not just that, so really it's not a strict dichotomy, meaning that by modeling conceptualizations we do not have to say "the species only exist on our heads", or "well, then anything goes". I agree (sheepishly) that it does come down to what the input data look like, and what the expectations are towards just accommodating the user community versus pushing them in a particular direction. Some of this also on p. 47 of this PDF: https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/jbi/article/view/3927/3852 > > /Aedes triseriatus/ owl:sameAs /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > > Others seem to see them as phylogenetic end nodes which entail a > specific phylogenetic history. > > /Aedes triseriatus/ distinctFrom /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/ > / > / > If you are primarily interested in understanding issues of ecology, > disease, diversity and conservation the former model is more > appropriate than the later. > > Respectfully, > > - Pete Regards, Nico Nico M. Franz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director, UPRM Invertebrate Collection Department of Biology University of Puerto Rico Call Box 9000 Mayagüez, PR 00681-9000 Phone: (787) 832-4040, ext. 3005 Fax: (787) 834-3673 E-mail: nico.franz(a)upr.edu Laboratory website: http://academic.uprm.edu/~franz/ UPRM-INVCOL: http://uprm-invcol-project.tumblr.com/

3 2

Semantics for Biodiversity Symposium -- Call for Abstracts
by Robert Guralnick 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

*Semantics for Biodiversity Symposium -- Call for Abstracts *http://semantics4biodiversity.nceas.ucsb.edu at TDWG Conference 2013 October 28 - November 1, 2013 - Florence, Italy. *Symposium Description and Scope * This Symposium includes a series of three, 90 minute sessions at TDWG that together constitute a "Semantics for Biodiversity" track, focused on -- Ontologies and formal models Technologies, Reasoning and Annotation methods Interoperability with genomic and ecological semantics These sessions are not parallel tracked and they are placed on separate days to avoid saturation on the topic. Additionally, there will be an initial "primer/tutorial" session of 60 minutes, to provide basic background for TDWG participants about semantic technologies, and how these can help inform biodiversity research. The conveners of this Symposium will be soliciting participation from diverse communities, including those from the biodiversity informatics and standards-development community per se, but also researchers interested in knowledge modeling and semantic application development in the biodiversity sciences, including relevant linkages to investigations in the ecological, genomic and phylogenetic sciences. *These thematic areas recommend a stronger-than-usual outreach to the computer science community, as researchers in that community will be particularly attracted by the prospects of reporting their work in a planned (and approved) special issue of the Semantic Web Journal on "Semantics for Biodiversity"*. Multiple groups of informaticians and technologists are currently developing semantic technologies to enhance discovery, interpretation, and interoperability of biodiversity data, so the upcoming meeting will provide a signal opportunity to present and discuss these activities in a coordinated fashion before perhaps the most relevant community who can inform, critique, and contribute to these efforts. Further, it's anticipated that these sessions will significantly raise awareness among computer scientists and engineers relative to the informatics challenges confronting the biodiversity community, particularly among those developing generalized knowledge representation and reasoning technologies, and machine-learning approaches. *Important Dates * Submission due: September 4, 2013 Acceptance Notification: September 11, 2013 Symposium dates: October 29 - November 1, 2013 *Symposium Format and Submissions* We invite abstract submissions (500 words maximum) for the three sessions, which will be dedicated to short presentations on the topics described in abstracts. We anticipate presentations will be for 20 minutes, with the possibility that these times will change depending on the number of quality submissions. Please visit http://semantics4biodiversity.nceas.ucsb.edu for additional information on each of the sessions. Questions for the organizers can be directed to semantics4biodiversity(a)nceas.ucsb.edu Submission site: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=s4bdtdwg2013 _______________________________________________ Semantics4biodiversity mailing list Semantics4biodiversity(a)nceas.ucsb.edu http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/semantics4biodiversity

1 0

iDigBio Train-the-Trainers Georeferencing Workshop Oct 8 - 12, 2012
by Deb Paul 09 Aug '13

09 Aug '13

** Hi Everyone, The Georeferencing Working Group at iDigBio is pleased to announce our first "Train-the-Trainers" Georeferencing Workshop for Thematic Collections Networks (TCNs) and others in engaged in the digitization of biological collections in the United States. See: https://www.idigbio.org/content/idigbios-first-train-trainers-georeferencin… for details. Three slots are still available in this workshop that is designed to focus on training participants to teach others to georeference. If you are interested, please send an application describing the reason(s) for your interest in the workshop, the current and future projects that will benefit from your attendance, and any previous experience you have with georeferencing to iDigBio's Program Assistant, Cathy Bester, cbester(a)flmnh.ufl.edu What: Train-the-Trainers -- Georeferencing Workshop Where: University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Who: Interested members of current TCNs and others in the biodiversity natural history collections community. When: October 8-12, 2012 Contact: Deborah Paul dpaul(a)fsu.edu for further information. Best, Deb and the iDigBio Georeferencing Working Group Deborah Paul User Services, iDigBio Institute for Digital Information, iDigInfo Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32308 850-644-6366

2 2