10 Jun
2010
10 Jun
'10
21:45
Sorry - I meant to post this URL: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org > [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:36 AM > To: 'Kevin Richards'; 'Peter DeVries' > Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; 'Jerry Cooper' > Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking > > > Well, for starters, zoobank is not in the business of dealing > with taxon concepts -- so I wouldn't use that domain name in > the example. > > Also, what *is* the correct pl;ace to get DwC? Peter was > using http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon; but > I've been using http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm. Now I'm > thoroughly confused.... > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Richards [mailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz] > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:22 AM > > To: Richard Pyle; 'Peter DeVries' > > Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Jerry Cooper > > Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking > > > > I think my main point here was the fact that in most > schemas we (TDWG, > > et al) have created, we have not really provided an ID > field for (2). > > As you said (2) is the "concept definition" but there is no > ID field > > (that I have come across), for referring to it explicitly. > > > > My thought would be to have something like: > > > > http://zoobank.org/taxonconcept/12345-ABCDE > > > > that returns data for the "whole" taxon concept (ie 2), not > just the > > Name + Reference > > > > I think it is really a data/technical issue - ie the way the > > schemas/models are defined, a Taxon Concept ID includes, and only > > includes, a Name ID and a Reference ID. This is based on my > > understanding of TCS - perhaps DwC is different?? > > > > Kevin > > > > > > -----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@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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > tdwg-content mailing list > tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org > http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content >