tdwg-content

Download

tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org

March 2020

1 participants
2 discussions

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

Darwin Core Hour 2020: about Accessing Biological Collections Data (ABCD) and BioCASe
by Deborah Paul 10 Mar '20

10 Mar '20

Hello TDWG folks, RE: Darwin Core Hour 2020 Topic: BioCASe Provider Software and ABCD: A Universal Approach for Biodiversity Collection Data <https://www.idigbio.org/content/darwin-core-hour-biocase-provider-software-…> Date:Wednesday, 11 March 2020 Where: https://fsu.zoom.us/j/269095988 Time (1 Hour): 11 AM (EDT), 16:00 CET, 15:00 GMT Corresponding UTC: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 15:00:00 <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20200311T1500> ABCD is a biocollections data standard -- Accessing Biological Collections Data. While many of you are familiar with Darwin Core, you may not know ABCD. Similarly, lots of you know and use the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT) used to package up the data into an archive file that aggregators like iDigBio and GBIF can ingest. ABCD and BioCASe quite different than Darwin Core and IPT in scope and function. Curious? Note about 100 institutions worldwide use ABCD and BioCASe to share their biocollections data. Find out more, join us for this Darwin Core Hour. Note this webinar is targeted at data managers, but is also designed for those without deep IT knowledge. Presenter: Jörg Holetschek, Biodiversity Data Networks Coordinator, Botanic Garden & Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (BGBM), joined by colleagues Gabi Dröge, and David Fichtmüller. Moderators: The Darwin Core Hour Team See you tomorrow! The Darwin Core Hour Team PS. Past Darwin Core Hour Webinars <https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/wiki/Webinars> Submit your question <http://bit.ly/dwchour-input> Contribute an answer <https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/issues> - please share your expertise and experience! See questions-answered-so-far <https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/wiki> on the Darwin Core Q & A site -- -- Upcoming iDigBio Events https://www.idigbio.org/calendar -- Deborah Paul, iDigBio Digitization and Workforce Development Manager iDigBio -- Steering Committee Member SPNHC Liaison, Member-At-Large and Member International Relations Committee ICEDIG External Advisory Board Member https://icedig.eu/ Vice Chair, Biodiversity Information Standards Organisation (TDWG)(2019-2021) Managing Editor, Biodiversity Information Science and Standards (BISS) https://biss.pensoft.net/board/ Institute for Digital Information, 234 LSB Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 850-644-6366

1 0