I like the examples on this page http://code.google.com/p/ala-bie/wiki/OntologyCompetency
However they illustrate several problems with using taxon names.
These queries only work if the species, families, and genera are unique strings.
What about identical taxa that are marked up using different names?
What do you do about taxa that are organized into different clades by different groups?
I think this is a better example.
What plants are expected in Door County Wisconsin that are classified by the USDA Plants Database as "Forb/Herb"
PREFIX txn: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl# PREFIX rdf: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# PREFIX dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ PREFIX door_county_wi: http://sws.geonames.org/5250768/ PREFIX usda_plant: http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/usda_plants.owl#
select distinct ?s, ?o as ?image, ?class, ?order, ?family, ?sciname where { ?s rdf:type txn:SpeciesConcept. ?s rdf:type usda_plant:Growth_Habit_Forb_Herb. ?s txn:isExpectedIn door_county_wi:. ?s txn:class ?class. ?s txn:order ?order. ?s txn:family ?family. ?s txn:hasScientificName ?sciname. optional {?s txn:thumbnail ?o.}. }
ORDER BY ASC(?sciname)
limit 650
See the screen shots etc at this bit.ly link http://bit.ly/qRh7xG
There are additional examples here: http://www.taxonconcept.org/example-sparql-queries/
- Pete
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
There is a series of jokes, and an entire TV quiz show, essentially starting from the meme "What is the question to which the answer is <X>". Now, I am not a biologist (surprise!), so it is likely that domain ignorance leaves me unable to understand whether all the postings in the thread about new DwC term resolution are arguing from the same set of questions their authors hope to have answered by a resolution of the term "Individual". (It's even a little unclear to me whether everybody has the same notion of "resolution of a term", but that's a whole different discussion, which would contain a lot of uses of "rdf:type" and the contentious "rdfs:domain").
I speculate that lengthy term definition debates would be shorter if they started with agreement on competency questions for the term. Competency questions are sort of usage scenarios cast as questions. See http://marinemetadata.org/references/competencyquestionsoverview .
Bob Morris
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
My turn to disagree (strongly, in this case). It's not an instance of a taxon, it's an instance of an Organism. A taxon is merely a non-factual (i.e., opinion-based) attribute of an organism, secondarily associated
via
an Identification instance.
I could probably be comfortable with "OrganismInstance"; but in that
case,
why not just "Organism" as Paul suggested? Isn't "Instance" sort of
implied
by all the classes?
I am certainly open to debate about where the "upper boundary" of an instance of this class, and I agree that "population" could be
interpreted
more as a low level of "taxon", rather than a high level of "organism".
But
I certainly don't think that instances of this class should be limited to
a
singular organism. Would a coral head then constitute thousands of instances of this class? Surely such colonies could be collapsed into a single instance of this class. And the same would likely also be useful
for
colonies of insects (ants, termites, bees, etc.), as well as small groups (pack of wolves, pod of whales, etc.); not to mention a specimen "lot" in
a
Museum collection.
I agree it should have only *one* taxon, but that there should be no
upper
limit on the rank of this taxon. If more than one taxon is identified,
then
there needs to be a separate instance of this class for each identified taxon. But this only applies when multiple taxa are acknowledged -- it
does
NOT restrict multiple taxa being linked to the same instance via multiple identifications when there is a difference of opinion about what the
correct
taxon identity should be. In other words, an instance of this class may
be
identified as "A" *or* "B", but could not legitimately be identified as
"A"
*and* "B" simultaneously (except, perhaps in the case of hybrids, but
that's
another situation altogether).
More later.
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Gregor Hagedorn Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:09 AM To: Steven J. Baskauf Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
represent a single taxon. I think that Individual is probably not a good name due to confusion with the technical use of that term
elsewhere.
TaxonInstance seems to me to be perhaps most precise. Personally I have a problem merging individual with population, since population -> metapopulation -> subspecies form a continuum in my understanding. But I am quite willing to be pragmatical :-)
Gregor _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 IT Staff Filtered Push Project Department of Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University
email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile) _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content