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