Richard Pyle wrote: 
Damn.  Sent that too soon.  Here's the rest: 

  
Having made a decision about this based on functional need 
and shared properties, it is still helpful for me to try to 
develop a mental image of what these two things are.  In my 
mind, I imagine the ResamplingUnitHavingDetermination (which 
I will henceforth return to calling dwc:Individual) to be an 
entity having a homogeneous taxonomic identity.  
    

I know that your original point for establishing the Class Individual was to
allow for Resampling of things -- and I think that's a key value to having a
class for Individual.  But I don't think a class Individual that is
*restricted* to things that are resampled (or resamplable) is a wise
approach.  A broader approach that serves the needs of resampled things
*and* things sampled only once would, I think, represent a better compromise
between consumer needs and provider needs.

  
If the entity is removed 
and preserved in its entirety (fish killed and put in a jar 
of formaldehyde), it ceases to exist as a dwc:Individual and 
begins to exist as an AccessionedUnit.  
    

If you're talking about these as two separate classes in DwC, I'm getting
very nervous.  There is very little ambiguity between an instance of
"Locality" and an instance of "Taxon".  Same can be said for the other DwC
classes (except, maybe, Event and Occurrence -- but I think most people
would not have any trouble deciding what those two things are).  However, I
see a lot of ambiguity between were an Individual ends, and a
BiologicalObject(=AccessionedUnit) begins.  To me that says that dividing
them into separate classes is inviting confusion and inconsistent
application of DwC to existing (and most future) datasets.
Forget that I ever tried to try to describe how I "think" about Individuals.  Retract all of that and say that the thing I want is a class for the object of the Darwin Core term individualID, whatever that thing is.  If anybody else can figure out how to make it other things by nifty tricks of subclassing or domain definitions, have at it.
  
I agree with the point that was made previously that no 
specific taxonomic level should be placed in the definition 
of Individual.  That would allow for the possibility that 
Individuals could contain several different lower level taxa 
as long as the Individual is homogeneous at the taxonomic 
level at with the determination is applied.  I am open to 
suggestion for how this could be accomplished.  Somehow there 
needs to be a value for a term like "individualScope" that 
allows one to make the kind of inferences about duplicates 
that I described previously.  
    

Agreed.  I think there does need to be a dwc:individualScope term, and there
should be a recommended Controlled Vocabulary to go along with it.

  
THE BOTTOM LINE
I believe that the proposed definition for the DwC class 
Individual should stand as it is (i.e. as a node to connect 
multiple Occurrences to multiple Identifications).  
    

Unfortunately, we don't seem to be any closer to consensus on this point.
Perhaps others who have been following this dicussion can weigh in?

  
If we 
can do these things, I think we could say that a general 
(i.e. denormalized enough to satisfy everyone who is 
dissatisfied at the present moment) Darwin Core model is 
"complete" to the "left" of Identification on the 
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/pages/full-model.jpg diagram. 
 I'm not going to touch the Taxon side right now.
    

I agree with everything in this diagram *except* the box labelled "multiple
tokens and types".  I'm still unclear on what this thing is, and what sorts
of properties it would have.  However, if it represents what I think it
reprersents, then I would hang it off the "Individual" class.
It means that in a single Occurrence you can take a picture, record, a sound, and collect several specimens if you want.  You can't hang if off of the Individual class if you come back a year later and do it again.  Some people actually do that kind of thing (me, whale people, bird people).  If you want to keep Darwin Core as the "one specimen-one time" club that it was when it started, then forget about the Individual class.
  
Whether or not action is taken on creating a class for what 
I'm calling "AccessionedUnit", there is no reason to hold up 
action on my Individual class proposal if people agree with 
the points I've made here.
    

Well, including you and I, there is at least 50% agreement! :-)

Maybe others can wiegh in?

Aloha,
Rich


.

  

-- 
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