I made up the outline below to get a better idea of what things each of the classes "needs" to have defined.
Another way to think of this is what do these need to be linked to.
To some extent this is structured based on how these records will be used.
For instance, you could simply link from an Occurrence to a Indentification, but you will probably want to display the scientificName without having to do a separate subquery.
Although some want to include all the identifications in the Occurrence record without stating which is the preferred identification; I see the need to view the identification history as a much rarer event
and is therefore best accessed via the record for Individual.
The individual has an identification history, while it would work best if the Occurrence had one preferred identification.
The use of a taxonConceptID allows all occurrences of the Mountain Lion to be found even if they have the scientific name "Felis concolor", "Puma concolor", "Puma concolor cougari"
The names used below are mainly descriptive and should not be interpreted as proposed DWC names.
Occurrence is a subclass of Event
an instanceOf:Occurrence has the following attributes
( modeled based on what users will want from them)
instanceOf:Event
instanceOf:Location
instanceOf:TimeInterval
instanceOf:Individual
instanceOf:SpeciesConcept (taxonConceptID)
instanceOf:ScientificName (could also include the full classification)
instanceOf:IdentificationCurrent
instanceOf:IdentificationPrevious ??
instanceOf:Observer (a Person)
instanceOf:Identifier (a Person)
* Note that Event is the combination of
a Location
a TimeInterval
instanceOf:Identification has the following attributes
instanceOf:Time (date?, year?)
instanceOf:Individual
instanceOf:Identifier (a Person)
instanceOf:ScientificName
instanceOf:SpeciesConcept (taxonConceptID)
instanceOf:Occurrence
* Note that IdentificationCurrent, IdentificationPrevious is are subclasses of Identification
instanceOf:Individual has the following attributes
instanceOf:Occurrence (multiple)
instanceOf:Identifier (a Person)
instanceOf:ScientificName
instanceOf:SpeciesConcept (taxonConceptID)
instanceOf:IdentificationCurrent
instanceOf:IdentificationHistory
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Richard Pyle
<deepreef@bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Personally, I don't really care what the term is -- as long as it's
well-defined, appropriate, reasonably unambiguous, and used consistently.
Of the options John listed, I personally prefer "Biological Entity", but I
also see Gregor's point that it may be too generic. I don't like the word
"Individual", because I would like to see it applied up to at least the
level of a group of individuals, if not a population (I would be very happy
if the "entity" covered by the term included subtypes of "Population",
"Group", "IndividualOrganism", and perhaps even "OrganismPart"; as well as
whatever terms in-between this spectrum are deemed useful).
I guess "Organism" comes closest, and I don't think the definition needs to
be so "pure" that it excludes viruses. But whatever term is selected,
please try to pick something that introduces as little ambiguity as
possible.
Aloha,
Rich
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Email: pdevries@wisc.edu
TaxonConcept & GeoSpecies Knowledge Bases
A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------