- tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] WPS for Names
by Matt Jones 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

Kevin, Also of relevance would be the work that iPlant is sponsoring on a Taxonomic Name Resolution Service (TNRS) -- see: https://pods.iplantcollaborative.org/wiki/display/iptol/TNRS+Workshop for background on a recent workshop for this activity. I'm sure they'd be interested in collaborating. I think Brian Enquist would have a good idea of progress on the project and would be able to provide more details. Matt On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Evgeniy Meyke <evgeniy(a)earthcape.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, Tony, and all > > > > As one of the very likely consumers of such a service I’ll be following > this with great interest. > > > > A quick question at this point. Is anything like this planned for GNA ( > www.globalnames.org)? or GBIF? > > > > Evgeniy > > > > *From:* tdwg-tag-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org [mailto: > tdwg-tag-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Richards > *Sent:* 8. heinäkuuta 2010 0:32 > *To:* Tony.Rees(a)csiro.au; tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org > > *Cc:* tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-tag] WPS for Names > > > > Thanks Tony. I would be interested in any collaboration we can do in this > area (assuming I find 5 minutes to work on it :-)) > > > > There seems to be several approaches to name matching/integration – one > working with the name strings, and one working with more structured data. > It would be good to clarify and perhaps standardise these approaches. (the > second approach is discussed in a recent paper of mine). > > > > It does indeed become a slippery slope, and this is one of the reasons I am > keen to promote some sort of infrastructure/configurability of a matching > system, so that end users can configure a matching algorithm/workflow to > suit their particular data. > > > > Kevin > > > > > > *From:* Tony.Rees(a)csiro.au [mailto:Tony.Rees@csiro.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 7 July 2010 7:06 p.m. > *To:* Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org > *Cc:* tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > *Subject:* RE: WPS for Names > > > > Dear all (actually: I’m not sure who are the recipients currently on > tdwg-tag, maybe I will now find out!!) > > > > As some on this list may be aware, this is an area that has been of > interest to me for quite some time (for example see: > http://taxacom.markmail.org/message/ywq7ijiaeks7heiv ), so happy to see > what can be done in this space. > > > > Currently my algorithm is web accessible and tests designated genus names > against genus names held, and genus+species combinations against both genus > only, and genus+species combinations as held in my “IRMNG” reference > database (search entry point is at > http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/irmng/ if interested). I am also > planning to implement a degree of cross-rank matching shortly, e.g. if a > subgenus is supplied, test this as a possible genus against genus+species > combinations (as this often turns out to be the reason for a direct mismatch > in practice), same with infraspecies vs. subspecies (my current interface > does not yet handle infraspecies, and just detect then “parks” apparent > subgenera, but the intention is to handle these as testable components in > due course). > > > > Maybe I will set up the above options and let you know as available for > testing. Also I may look for genus+species concatenated (think Homosapiens), > genus+subgenus+species with missing brackets around subgenus, and maybe > other things, as per my somewhat extensive exposure to otherwise > non-resolved namestrings floating around in OBIS/GBIF data provider space. > Of course it is a slippery slope; other examples are family in genus field > and vice versa, or common name similar; genus and species reversed; > truncated names not flagged as such; abbreviated genera (which I already > handle as exact, but not fuzzy matches at this time, at least as “H. > sapiens” etc.); more.. > > > > Any comments on the above welcome, > > > > Regards - Tony > > > > Tony Rees > Manager, Divisional Data Centre, > CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, > GPO Box 1538, > Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia > Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318) > Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000) > e-mail: Tony.Rees(a)csiro.au > Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ > Biodiversity informatics research activities: > http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm > Personal info: > http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* tdwg-tag-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org [mailto: > tdwg-tag-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Richards > *Sent:* Wednesday, 7 July 2010 11:55 AM > *To:* tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org > *Cc:* tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org > *Subject:* [tdwg-tag] WPS for Names > > > > I have been pondering taxon name matching type services lately… > > > > I wonder if the OGC WPS (Web Processing Service) would make a good platform > for integrating the various name matching algorithms that are being worked > on lately. > > > > I was imagining something like a web interface where you can go to and view > a list of the available algorithms and select different algorithms in > different orders to get the best set of match results your own list of name > strings/data. > > If everyone set up their algorithms as a WPS then this interface would call > each WPS in the appropriate order until then end of the configured workflow > path. > > > > UI something like (in diagram): > > > > > > Where the bottom part is configurable by the user. Each box being a > representation of a WPS service for doing the match. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Perhaps something that could be discussed at TDWG? > > > > One issue would be how to define/specify the list of names to match against > – then when you pass the processing of a match routine how would it access > the names list to match?? Perhaps it could all be based on one server and > people could submit algorithm/WPS services to it? > > > > Hmmmm, will keep dreaming … > > > > Kevin > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is > confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, > disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by > reply email and then delete the emails. > The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New > Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz > > > ------------------------------ > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is > confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, > disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by > reply email and then delete the emails. > The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New > Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-tag mailing list > tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag > >

3 2

Re: [tdwg-content] WPS for Names
by Kevin Richards 07 Jul '10

07 Jul '10

Thanks Tony. I would be interested in any collaboration we can do in this area (assuming I find 5 minutes to work on it :-)) There seems to be several approaches to name matching/integration - one working with the name strings, and one working with more structured data. It would be good to clarify and perhaps standardise these approaches. (the second approach is discussed in a recent paper of mine). It does indeed become a slippery slope, and this is one of the reasons I am keen to promote some sort of infrastructure/configurability of a matching system, so that end users can configure a matching algorithm/workflow to suit their particular data. Kevin From: Tony.Rees(a)csiro.au [mailto:Tony.Rees@csiro.au] Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 7:06 p.m. To: Kevin Richards; tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org Cc: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: WPS for Names Dear all (actually: I'm not sure who are the recipients currently on tdwg-tag, maybe I will now find out!!) As some on this list may be aware, this is an area that has been of interest to me for quite some time (for example see: http://taxacom.markmail.org/message/ywq7ijiaeks7heiv ), so happy to see what can be done in this space. Currently my algorithm is web accessible and tests designated genus names against genus names held, and genus+species combinations against both genus only, and genus+species combinations as held in my "IRMNG" reference database (search entry point is at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/irmng/ if interested). I am also planning to implement a degree of cross-rank matching shortly, e.g. if a subgenus is supplied, test this as a possible genus against genus+species combinations (as this often turns out to be the reason for a direct mismatch in practice), same with infraspecies vs. subspecies (my current interface does not yet handle infraspecies, and just detect then "parks" apparent subgenera, but the intention is to handle these as testable components in due course). Maybe I will set up the above options and let you know as available for testing. Also I may look for genus+species concatenated (think Homosapiens), genus+subgenus+species with missing brackets around subgenus, and maybe other things, as per my somewhat extensive exposure to otherwise non-resolved namestrings floating around in OBIS/GBIF data provider space. Of course it is a slippery slope; other examples are family in genus field and vice versa, or common name similar; genus and species reversed; truncated names not flagged as such; abbreviated genera (which I already handle as exact, but not fuzzy matches at this time, at least as "H. sapiens" etc.); more.. Any comments on the above welcome, Regards - Tony Tony Rees Manager, Divisional Data Centre, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318) Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000) e-mail: Tony.Rees(a)csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees@csiro.au> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566 ________________________________ From: tdwg-tag-bounces(a)lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Richards Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 11:55 AM To: tdwg-tag(a)lists.tdwg.org Cc: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org Subject: [tdwg-tag] WPS for Names I have been pondering taxon name matching type services lately... I wonder if the OGC WPS (Web Processing Service) would make a good platform for integrating the various name matching algorithms that are being worked on lately. I was imagining something like a web interface where you can go to and view a list of the available algorithms and select different algorithms in different orders to get the best set of match results your own list of name strings/data. If everyone set up their algorithms as a WPS then this interface would call each WPS in the appropriate order until then end of the configured workflow path. UI something like (in diagram): [cid:image001.gif@01CB1E7E.666E0530] Where the bottom part is configurable by the user. Each box being a representation of a WPS service for doing the match. Any thoughts? Perhaps something that could be discussed at TDWG? One issue would be how to define/specify the list of names to match against - then when you pass the processing of a match routine how would it access the names list to match?? Perhaps it could all be based on one server and people could submit algorithm/WPS services to it? Hmmmm, will keep dreaming ... Kevin ________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

1 0

Taxon Concept dilemma
by Kevin Richards 07 Jul '10

07 Jul '10

Hello all, I have an issue that I would like some comment on... We have some data that covers Taxa, Names and Concept relationships. Eg - A Taxon table that contains the nomenclatural details + accepted name + parent name - Concept + relationship tables that contain details about the name + references where the name has been used in a taxonomic sense (ie not nomenclatural information) - this is specifically a link between the Name and a Reference We have fairly permanent Ids for the Taxon Name (nomenclatural) and the Concepts, but I now what to consider the ID to cover the whole Taxon (ie the Nomenclatural data + taxon rank + parent name + accepted name, etc, as "we" understand them). (Probably equivalent to the taxonID in Dwc) The problem is this tends to be much more dynamic data - ie, in this particular case we have aggregated data from a variety of providers and are in continual revision of this data - as we revise the data the details such as the accepted name may change - this troubles me a bit, because this could be seen as fundamentally changing the definition of the object behind the taxonID. However, I suspect this is a common case that people find themselves in - ie revision/tidying of aggregated datasets must be quite common. I would prefer to NOT change the taxonID every time we revise that data (taking the angle that these changes are corrections, so are not changing the object itself). Should it be OK to have an object type like this, that is likely to change, but keep the ID permanent for it - ie accept that some object types are quite dynamic? The only other option is to maintain a hideous version audit trail, that probably hinders the use of the data more than it benefits the end user by providing "stability". Any thoughts? Kevin ________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

9 20

WPS for Names
by Kevin Richards 07 Jul '10

07 Jul '10

I have been pondering taxon name matching type services lately... I wonder if the OGC WPS (Web Processing Service) would make a good platform for integrating the various name matching algorithms that are being worked on lately. I was imagining something like a web interface where you can go to and view a list of the available algorithms and select different algorithms in different orders to get the best set of match results your own list of name strings/data. If everyone set up their algorithms as a WPS then this interface would call each WPS in the appropriate order until then end of the configured workflow path. UI something like (in diagram): [cid:image002.png@01CB1DDB.86BDF370] Where the bottom part is configurable by the user. Each box being a representation of a WPS service for doing the match. Any thoughts? Perhaps something that could be discussed at TDWG? One issue would be how to define/specify the list of names to match against - then when you pass the processing of a match routine how would it access the names list to match?? Perhaps it could all be based on one server and people could submit algorithm/WPS services to it? Hmmmm, will keep dreaming ... Kevin ________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

1 0

[tdwg-lit] FW: ZooKeys jubilee issue: New publishing tools to accelerate biodiversity research
by Donat Agosti 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

Below the announcement of the launch of Zookeys revamp to become a XML based taxonomic journal. I believe this is not only timely, but it allows to study and discuss the use for marked-up and enhanced literature. As far as I know, taxpub, the underlying DTD is the first NLM publishing and archiving DTD that has been enhanced for a specific domain. Lyubo and we at Plazi are interested to hear your opinions and suggestions. Cheers Donat -----Original Message----- From: Lyubomir Penev [mailto:info@pensoft.net] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 7:44 PM To: Donat Agosti Subject: ZooKeys jubilee issue: New publishing tools to accelerate biodiversity research Dear ZooKeys readers, I have certainly good news to share (apologies to Taxacom subscribers for cross-posting!) On the eve of its two-years birthday (4th of July 2008), ZooKeys published its jubilee issue No 50 (http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/issue/view/52) This special edition demonstrates how integrating the traditional part of publication with the research and dissemination processes can deliver dramatic benefits by using semantic tagging and semantic enhancements (http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/article/view/538/469) Several novelties are described in the two forum papers and demonstrated in four exemplar papers: The papers are published in four different formats: (1) high-resolution, full-colour print version, to satisfy the current requirements of the ICZN, as well as the readers who prefer hardcopy, and for the purposes of paper archiving; (2) PDF to provide an electronic version identical to the printed one, to be archived in BHL and PubMedCentral; (3) HTML to provide links to external resources and semantic enhancements to published texts for interactive reading, and (4) XML version based on the TaxPub extension to the National Library of Medicines DTD (http://sourceforge.net/projects/taxpub/) to provide archiving document format for PubMedCentral and a machine-readable copy of the contents to facilitate future data mining (e.g., by EOL, GBIF, Plazi and others). An XML-based editorial, publication and dissemination workflow was implemented, which permits acceptance of manuscripts generated either from databases (Scratchpads websites, http://www.sciaroidea.info and http://milichiidae.info and Proctotrupoidea website, http://www.vsyslab.osu.edu) or as standard MS Word file. The XML manuscripts generated by pushing the button from Scratchpads are linked to the online dynamic versions of the same after publication. A dynamic web-page for any taxonomic name mentioned in a publication is being created and explored online through the so-called Pensoft Taxon Profile tool, just by clicking on the name during the reading process. The dynamically generated taxon profile gathers and displays information from several leading biodiversity websites, e.g., GBIF, NCBI (GenBank, PubMed and PubMedCentral), EOL, Barcode of Life, BHL, IUCN, ZooBank, Morphbank, Wikipedia, Wikimedia and others. An example can be a plant species, e.g., the cork oak (Quercus suber): http://pmt.pensoft.eu/resources/articles/external_details.php?query=Quercus+ suber, mentioned in a zoological paper (http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/article/view/504/448) The tool offers an option to Create your own taxon profile for any taxonomic name of interest. A number of additional semantic enhancements are used in the HTML versions: (i) internal cross-linking between paper sections, citations, references, tables, figures; (ii) vizualisation of main tag elements within the text (e.g., taxon names, taxon treatments, citations); (iii) mapping of georeferenced localities listed in the whole paper or within separate taxon treatments; (iv) enlarging figures and visualization of literature references by pointing on citations within the text; (v) external linking to GenBank and Barcode of Life accession numbers, Morphbank, online maps, literature references, museum collections, and some more. The partnering organisations are listed in: http://pensoftonline.net/Parnering%20organisations-special%20issue-ZooKeys-5 0.pdf It is anticipated that the workflow will be soon implemented also in the forthcoming PhytoKeys, a partner journal of ZooKeys. Needless to say, the editors and authors involved in the current issue are thrilled by this development and would like to receive comments and criticism for further developing of the proposed workflow. Once again, many thanks to all ZooKeys friends for their valuable support! Lyubomir Lyubomir Penev ZooKeys Editorial Manager Pensoft Publishers Phone +359-888-451668 Fax +359-2-8704282 info(a)pensoft.net ZooKeys ZooKeys 50 (2010) Special Issue Table of Contents http://pensoftonline.net/zookeys/index.php/journal/issue/view/52 Editorial -------- Taxonomy shifts up a gear: New publishing tools to accelerate biodiversity research Lyubomir Penev, David Roberts, Vincent Smith, Donat Agosti, Terry Erwin Forum Paper -------- Semantic tagging of and semantic enhancements to systematics papers: ZooKeys working examples Lyubomir Penev, Donat Agosti, Teodor Georgiev, Terry Catapano, Jeremy Miller, Vladimir Blagoderov, David Roberts, Vincent S. Smith, Irina Brake, Simon Ryrcroft, Ben Scott, Norman F. Johnson, Robert A. Morris, Guido Sautter, Vishwas Chavan, Tim Robertson, David Remsen, Pavel Stoev, Cynthia Parr, Sandra Knapp, W. John Kress, F. Christian Thompson, Terry Erwin Streamlining taxonomic publication: a working example with Scratchpads and ZooKeys Vladimir Blagoderov, Irina Brake, Teodor Georgiev, Lyubomir Penev, David Roberts, Simon Ryrcroft, Ben Scott, Donat Agosti, Terrence Catapano, Vincent S. Smith Research Articles -------- The centipede genus Eupolybothrus Verhoeff, 1907 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) in North Africa, a cybertaxonomic revision, with a key to all species in the genus and the first use of DNA barcoding for the group Pavel Stoev, Nesrine Akkari, Marzio Zapparoli, David Porco, Henrik Enghoff, Gregory D. Edgecombe, Teodor Georgiev, Lyubomir Penev Parisognoriste, a new genus of Lygistorrhinidae (Diptera: Sciaroidea) from the Oise amber with redescription of Palaeognoriste Meunier Vladimir Blagoderov, Heikki Hippa, Andre Nel Stomosis arachnophila sp. n., a new kleptoparasitic species of freeloader flies (Diptera, Milichiidae) Irina Brake, Michael von Tschirnhaus World species of the genus Platyscelio Kieffer (Hymenoptera: Platygastridae) Charuwat Taekul, Norman F. Johnson, Lubomír Masner, Andrew Polaszek, Rajmohana K. -- ZooKeys - Launched to accelerate biodiversity research __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5245 (20100702) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1 0

[tdwg-phylo] Birds-of-a-Feather gatherings for Conference on Informatics for Phylogenetics, Evolution, and Biodiversity (iEvoBio)
by Hilmar Lapp 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

In anticipation of the inaugural conference on Informatics for Phylogenetics, Evolution, and Biodiversity (iEvoBio), we solicit all attendees to propose and discuss Birds-of-a-Feather gatherings. See below for details. Birds-of-a-Feather gatherings (BoFs) are informal, ad-hoc, focused face-to-face discussion groups that form around a shared interest. BoFs have a leader (usually, but not necessarily, the proposer) who initiates or moderates the discussion, but typically not a preset agenda. The topics of BoFs can range widely, including general cultural or computational infrastructure issues, or narrower questions such as how to make the best use of a particular software tool or how to solve a particular computational challenge. Anyone willing to lead such a group can propose a BoF. iEvoBio will provide space that can accommodate up to 8-10 BoFs. Sign-up sheets will be provided on-site on the first day of the conference where attendees can propose a BoF or sign up for one proposed by someone else. BoFs will be about 1 hr in duration and take place in the afternoon of the second day of the conference. In line with their informal nature, there is no official prior call for or submission of BoFs. However, we encourage those intending to propose one to sound out or rally potential attendees ahead of time. We suggest to employ Twitter (http://twitter.com) for this, using the #ievobioBof tag to mark BoF proposals and comments. Birds-of-a-Feather gatherings are only 1 of 5 kinds of contributed content that iEvoBio will feature. The other 4 are: 1) Full talks (closed), 2) Lightning talks (waiting list only), 3) Challenge entries, and 4) Software Bazaar entries. The Calls for Challenge entries (http://ievobio.org/challenge.html) and Software Bazaar entries (http://ievobio.org/ocs/index.php/ievobio/2010/) remain open. More details about the program and guidelines for contributing content are available at http://ievobio.org. You can also find continuous updates on the conference's Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/iEvoBio. iEvoBio is sponsored by the US National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in partnership with the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB). Additional support has been provided by the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL). The iEvoBio 2010 Organizing Committee: Rod Page (University of Glasgow) Cecile Ane (University of Wisconsin at Madison) Rob Guralnick (University of Colorado at Boulder) Hilmar Lapp (NESCent) Cynthia Parr (Encyclopedia of Life) Michael Sanderson (University of Arizona)

1 0

Re: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
by Richard Pyle 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Warning to Tim: Go get your cup of tea before reading.... Hi Jerry, I believe what you describe: > I think we do need an agreed way for identifying a 'set of > name/article pointers' that define a useful grouping (which I > would hesitate to call a concept). I don't think an > open-ended linked data chain does provide that defined grouping. ...is already built into the GNUB data model. Starting with a particular TaxonNameUsageID instance, we can directly get a set of Protonyms that are asserted in the Usage to be included within the taxon. From these Protonyms, we can explode out as far as you want to go. The limitation, however, is that GNUB only includes the explict facts, not the interpreted meanings. In other words, we may know that Smith 1955 regarded Aus cus, Aus dus, and Aus eus as synonyms of Aus bus; but if he never mentioned Aus xus (either as another synonym, or as a distinct species) we can't know whether his circumscription of Aus bus would have included the type and implied other members of Aus xus. So, the facts alone don't cut it. So if Smith treated Aus bus as follows (synonym indended below asserted valid name): Aus bus L. - Aus bus L. - Aus cus Jones - Aus dus Brown - Aus eus Lamarck And Pyle treated Aus bus as Aus bus L. - Aus bus L. - Aus cus Jones - Aus dus Brown - Aus eus Lamarck - Aus xus Cooper [without any mention of Smith's treatment of Aus bus] ...then we need a third party to assert whether or not "Aus bus sec. Smith" and "Aus bus sec. Pyle" are congruent. With our new GNUB data model, we *could* represent these third-party assertions; but my gut feeling is that the third-party assertions should be external to the core GNUB model. But this is, of course, open for discussion. > Pete's point about the two different name/article > intersections referring to the same 'concept' is resolved by > the fact they are based on the same type, and that issue I > prefer to see resolved at the nomenclatural level by > protologue & type-collection pointers (as in the GNUB model). Types don't do it for us. Using my example above, suppose we have DeVries' treatment of the Aus bus complex as follows. Aus bus L. - Aus bus L. - Aus cus Jones - Aus dus Brown Aus eus Lamarck - Aus xus Cooper That is, he treated Aus bus and Aus eus as valid species, and included Aus xus as a synonym of the latter. In all three treatements of Aus bus (Smith, Pyle, DeVries), the name "Aus bus" shares the same type -- but that doesn't mean that all three had the same taxon concept (circumscription). So, in my mind, the real question is: Do we need a separate "taxonConceptID" (as in the TDWG version of DwC) that we can use to brand the abstract Concept? Or are we able to assemble the same results from individual usage-instance mappings? So, let's say that we are confident that Smith and Pyle both had the same idea for the taxon concept/circumscription of Aus bus (it's just that Smith forgot to list Aus xus in his synonymy). Do we need a single taxonConceptID to express the fact that they are the same taxon concept? Or can we derive that easily enough from a third-party assertion of the congruency of the concepts represented by the two usage-instances? Presumably we would also have separate taxonConceptID's for "Aus bus sec. DeVries", and for "Aus eus sec. DeVries". > I think it would help if we took a step back from using the > term 'taxon concept' and agreed on what we are trying to > achieve by linking/grouping the various constructs, and then > arrive at a more precisely defined vocabulary for > name/article intersections, and the open-ended universe of > related stuff. AGREED!!! > I suspect we will find that different end-user groups (e.g. > hard core nomenclaturalists, nomenclaturally savvy > taxonomists, most taxonomists, and the most important group > ... non taxonomic savvy end-users of taxonomic services) all > have differing and overlapping requirements, and a different > understanding of the words being used. NO DOUBT! > Despite my peripheral involvement in taxon concept space for > many years I suspect the above comments reflect a deep seated > blinkered view that stops me seeing how it should work given > the existing vocabulary! ME TOO! :-) Rich

7 20

Re: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
by Mark Wilden 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef(a)bishopmuseum.org> wrote: > > Hmm...not sure I agree. At the moment that spcific atom is part of the ant, > then it seems to me that it is also part of Formicidae. It gets weird, > though, because atoms enter and leave the circumscribed individual ant over > time, whereas the abstract notion of "the ant" stays the same from its birth > to its death. But then again, if Formicidae is circumscribed by its member > individual ants, then these individual ants then enter and leave the > circumscription (when they are born or conceived, and when they die). I don't think it's enough to say "is circumscribed by its member individual ants." You have to also state the basis of that circumscription, as it obviously can't just be by enumeration. For example, I think it would be fair to say that in order to be a member of Formicidae, an entity must be an ant (there may be other, better criteria, but you get the idea). That's why I say that a specimen is the ultimate circumscription, at least of the taxonomic kind. An atom isn't a kind of ant, but an ant has an atom. Inheritance vs. composition. ///ark

1 0

FW: Name is species concept thinking
by Kevin Richards 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

Forwarded for Jerry, as his email was bounced... -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Cooper Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:43 a.m. To: Richard Pyle; Kevin Richards; 'Peter DeVries' Cc: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking I hesitate to contribute to this debate, but it is useful. Kevin articulated an issue that has bugged me forever. I think we do need an agreed way for identifying a 'set of name/article pointers' that define a useful grouping (which I would hesitate to call a concept). I don't think an open-ended linked data chain does provide that defined grouping. Pete's point about the two different name/article intersections referring to the same 'concept' is resolved by the fact they are based on the same type, and that issue I prefer to see resolved at the nomenclatural level by protologue & type-collection pointers (as in the GNUB model). I think it would help if we took a step back from using the term 'taxon concept' and agreed on what we are trying to achieve by linking/grouping the various constructs, and then arrive at a more precisely defined vocabulary for name/article intersections, and the open-ended universe of related stuff. I suspect we will find that different end-user groups (e.g. hard core nomenclaturalists, nomenclaturally savvy taxonomists, most taxonomists, and the most important group ... non taxonomic savvy end-users of taxonomic services) all have differing and overlapping requirements, and a different understanding of the words being used. Despite my peripheral involvement in taxon concept space for many years I suspect the above comments reflect a deep seated blinkered view that stops me seeing how it should work given the existing vocabulary! Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org] Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:03 a.m. To: Kevin Richards; 'Peter DeVries' Cc: tdwg-content(a)lists.tdwg.org; Jerry Cooper Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking > This is something that has been slightly confused over the years, ie there seems to be 2 ways of defining a "taxon concept": > 1. A Taxon Name (nomenclatural data) + Literature Reference - ie Name X as defined in article Y > 2. As you have said a grouping of data that define a taxon concept (Name + Reference + Synonyms + Type Specimen + Protologue, .) I don't think of these as two different ways of defining a concept. I see #1 as a way of *pointing to* a taxon concept definition, and #2 as the concept definition itself. Basically, #1 (usage instance) is effectively a container or an identifier for the taxon concept definition. However, there is somewhat of a dichotmy in the way that taxon concepts are defined - one is by included members (i.e., specimens, presumably including at least one name-bearing type specimen, from which a name-label is derived), the other is by properties (i.e. characters -- morphologic, genetic, or otherwise). In practice, most concept definitions include both. But I think the "definition" of the concept (i.e., the circumscription boundaries) is the same for both -- it's just that those boundaries can be articulated in different ways (i.e., by examplar members, and by purported properties). > 1 has been covered quite well with the various schemas we have come up > with over the years, but I think these schemas have failed to capture > 2 very well (the data fields are there, but the encompassing ID is not), ie Agreed -- sort of. I think the schemas are there, but have not been organized appropriately (yet). See below. > TaxonName ID = N1, FullName = "Aus bus" > Reference ID = R1, Citation = "Richards, how to define a taxon concept" > TaxonConcept ID = C1, NameID = N1, ReferenceID = R1 > BUT, the taxon concept C1 does not encompass all related data that defines that concept (synonyms etc) No, but it could, through a network of linkages, as I tried to describe in one of my recent posts. > To do that we need more Concept Ids and relationships between these concepts, eg Exactly! And we need a schema-based process to capture the relevant information (diagnoses, etc.), anchored to the Concept Ids. At a basic level, Plazi/TaxonX does this. However, it usually only goes as far as the text-blob. To parse the text blob, we need to either look towards SDD (for character-based concept definition stuff) or DwC/Occurrence (for specimen-based concept definition stuff). > ConceptRelationship ID=CR1 ConceptFromID=C2, ConceptToID =C1, RelationshipType='has preferred name' Yes, I agree we need this as well! But again, I see this as a way of networking pointers to taxon concept defintions, not describing the definitions themselves. Man, these conversations really hurt my brain.... :-) Aloha, Rich Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

1 0

Name is species concept thinking
by Peter DeVries 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

I was looking through the latest DarwinCore and comments related to the TaxonConceptID. Since the name serves as both a unique identifier and a phylogenetic hypothesis, you are effectively saying that observations labeled *Aedes triseriatus* and *Ochlerotatus triseriatus* Are separate species concepts, and should therefore be treated as separate things. i.e. The name is the concept. Also since there are several name variants for each "species", how do you distinguish which of these nameID's are the same species and which are different? - Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 GeoSpecies Knowledge Base About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base ------------------------------------------------------------

6 17