Well, I wouldn't be opposed to that, particularly since the class currently called dsw:IndividualOrganism isn't really the same thing as the proposed dwc:Individual class is defined anyway. Steve Hilmar Lapp wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
As a point of clarification, the class dsw:IndividualOrganism as we have defined it in DSW does not specify that an instance of the class must actually be an individual organism [...] At one point we considered using the name TaxonomicallyHomogeneousEntity, but that seemed unwieldy.
If that's what it is, then that's what it should be called, in my opinion.
I would completely echo this. Although in some ways the label of a class is arbitrary and what counts is the definition, we communicate meaning through language, and thus how you name something matters.
Perhaps we can just try to pool ideas for a better name and see what comes up?
-hilmar
-- Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences postal mail address: VU Station B 351634 Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A. delivery address: 2125 Stevenson Center 1161 21st Ave., S. Nashville, TN 37235 office: 2128 Stevenson Center phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707 http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu