10 Jun
2010
10 Jun
'10
21:43
Yep, sorry about that - got carried away. I always look at http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ when looking at DwC stuff. The http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon is just for discussions - so does not include all the DwC terms/fields etc. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org] Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:36 a.m. 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 > 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