I like Organism, but I don't like the inconsistency it would make with individualID and individualCount on the one hand, or extra work to change these to organismID and organismCount on the other. Individual doesn't carry these extra burdens, and could be added without breaking any existing applications.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.orgwrote:
I think the only alternative to "Individual" that has been floated, and might be more appropriate, is "Organism". In my mind, at least, the word "Organism" can apply equally to a single cell, or a single multicellular organism, or a group of individuals, or a colony, or a population, or even a taxon. The advantage it has over "Individual" is that is more clearly related to the biology domain (not to be confused with other things called "Individual" in other domains), and also "Individual" might lead people to assume that gorups and populations and such are not within scope.
I don't feel strongly about it either way -- it's just a suggestion.
Rich
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Baskauf *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:21 PM *To:* tuco@berkeley.edu
*Cc:* tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] Treatise on Occurrence, tokens, and basisOfRecord [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
John, Thanks for the suggestion. It is appropriate given the clarification that has been made through the course of the discussion on this list. I have created a revised term definition and comments at http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69 .
With regards to the actual term name, I don't have any better idea. If someone has a suggestion, perhaps they can post it to the list for comment. Steve
John Wieczorek wrote:
Steve,
Can you add a comment to Issue 69 in which you state the updated term recommendation for the following?
Definition: Comment: Refines:
It might also be a good time to decide if Individual as a term name is equally offensive to all. Sure, it doesn't capture exactly all of the things an Individual might be, but the same is true of almost every term name - people should always consult the definitions, comments, and secondary documentation.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Steve Baskauf < steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
OK, I'm going to respectfully disagree here. dwc:Individual is not "overloaded" any more than dwc:class is overloaded. We know that dwc:class does not mean the same thing as "class" in RDF or Java because the term name is http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/class, not "class". We know that the proposed dwc:Individual has a specific meaning because it would be http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Individual and not "individual" in the sense of OWL or RDF or anything else.
The problem here is not lack of a clear definition for the proposed DwC class dwc:Individual . That thing has been defined to death, having been the subject of an entire published paper (Biodiversity Informatics 7:17-44), and having its definition restated at least three times in this thread. The problem is people entering the thread without being aware that it's been defined or having not read any of the definitions (I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just observing that this has happened several times in the thread). So one last time, I'll define what I intend for dwc:Individual to mean ("taxon" here means terminal taxon, species, ssp., or var.):
Layman's definition: a representative of a single taxon that serves to connect one or more dwc:Occurrences to one or more dwc:Identifications.
More technical definition: a resource representing a single taxon that serves as a node (sensu RDF) connecting one or more instances of the class dwc:Occurrence to one or instances of the class dwc:Identification .
These are functional definitions - they define what dwc:Individual "does" not what dwc:Individual "is". What dwc:Individual "is" is anything that fits the definition. Thus a biological individual can be a dwc:Individual, as can a clump of moss. The mixed-species content of a pitfall trap cannot be an individual because it does not represent a single taxon. Groups of biological individuals that are too large to know for sure that they are a single taxon probably shouldn't be considered a dwc:Individual.
I would be perfectly happy with changing the term name from "Individual" to something else as long as the definition of its purpose doesn't change and as long as dwc:individualID and the proposed dwc:individualRemarks are changed to match.
Leaving the term undefined and axiomatic is not an option. We have a proposal for a term addition to DwC ( http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=69) that's been on the table for nine months and I've essentially "called for the question" on the proposal. So unless somebody has something to add that's different from what has already been discussed at great length, let's move on.
Steve
Paul Murray wrote:
What exactly is an individual? A flock? A herd? A breading pair? A colony? A clonal stand?
One or more members of a class, for example, the class defined as all members of a taxon.
We'll have to add "individual" to the list of overloaded terms.
In the world of taxonomy and specimen curation, it apparently possibly means various things (perhaps "living things you can count"? "Living things that are identifiably the same thing from one day to another"? The boundaries of individuals are sometimes wobbly.).
In the world of OWL and RDF, an individual is an unspecified something that can be the subject or object of a (object) property. Individuals can be named with URIs.
Perhaps, then, an individual is simply "A living thing that we are sufficiently interested in to identify as an individual". That is: essentially to leave the term undefined and axiomatic.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
tdwg-content mailing listtdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orghttp://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- 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) 343-6707http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- 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) 343-6707http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu