tdwg-content

Download

tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org

February 2025

2 discussions

Round-tripping Data Feedback at TaxonWorks Together 2024
by Deborah Paul 26 Nov '25

26 Nov '25

Greetings All, RE: Balancing Global Agency and Local Precision. Roundtrip your feedback at TaxonWorks Together 2024 Presenter: David Shorthouse Where: online, free Register: https://together.taxonworks.org/ When: 8 May 2024 (next Wednesday) at 15:00 UTC (10:00 CDT). Many of us, as data providers and data aggregators need to both give and receive feedback about our data. A new proposed Darwin Core term: feedbackURL could provide a feasible -- actionable -- step forward. See SEE: https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/180 <SEE: https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/180>. If you'd like to learn more about this and how it might work for you, if you'd like to add to the conversation, please join us at TaxonWorks Together for the talk: Balancing Global Agency and Local Precision. Roundtrip your feedback. David Shorthouse presents this topic to share his take and insights on the potential in this term for all of us. It's exciting to be talking about implementing solutions that could help data providers get feedback directly. Hope to see you there! Note there are related sessions you might find interesting: * A Data Quality Round Table Conversation: with GBIF, iDigBio, TaxonWorks, the Paleo Data Working Group, Robert Mesibov, and You o From data quality (e. g. completeness, consistency, compliance), to data management, expect an in-depth congenial local-to-global conversation. From the data aggregator, to the working group, the researcher, the collection / data manager, and the data analyst, what do we each experience, what do we dream of? How is data-quality an outcome of processes? Looking for alignment opportunities. * A Look Inside One’s (TaxonWorks) Data o What’s in those buckets anyway in your database fields? How do you know where to find issues? When and how do you find snafus and how do you fix them? We explore the promise of the new Project vocab and Field Synchronize tasks in TaxonWorks. What are your processes and needs for doing this work to enhance and extend your data? How has the evolution of TaxonWorks illuminated outstanding data-quality challenges and what does it offer to make it eas(ier) to address them? + (pssst: if you know you me, you'll have heard me talk about visualizing the data in your databases, come see to get a taste of what this is making possible). Your questions, welcome. Looking forward to seeing you there! In anticipation, Debbie Paul, for the SFG and TaxonWorks Together 2024 - Deborah Paul, Biodiversity Informatics Community Liaison - Species File Group (INHS), University of Illinois -- Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Past Chair 2021-2022 -- Florida State University Courtesy Appointment -- Species File Group and Eventshttps://speciesfilegroup.org

2 1

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 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '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/

4 3