An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base http://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://about.geospecies.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------
Right, but that's only one of two types of "identified as Perciformes" circumstances. The other is, "there are many different species represented, but all fall within my taxon concept circumscription for Perciformes".
So the key question becomes: is your use of the word "species" in "Order Perciformes species undetermined" necessarily singular, or might it also be plural?
Aloha, Rich
_____
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:08 PM To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [tdwg-content] An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept http://www.taxonconcept.org/ Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies http://about.geospecies.org/ Knowledge Base ------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rich,
I have not actually tried the #Set or occurrenceCount to see if it works as expected in a triplestore>
Assuming this is for one of those #Set occurrences, a jar of fish all identified to the level of Perciformes it could be plural.
This does not say that they are all the same species, it just says that they are some species that falls within Perciformes.
- Pete
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.orgwrote:
Right, but that's only one of two types of "identified as Perciformes" circumstances. The other is, "there are many different species represented, but all fall within my taxon concept circumscription for Perciformes".
So the key question becomes: is your use of the word "species" in "Order Perciformes species undetermined" necessarily singular, or might it also be plural?
Aloha, Rich
*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter DeVries *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:08 PM *To:* tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org *Subject:* [tdwg-content] An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base http://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://about.geospecies.org/
OK, then we're in agreement.
_____
From: Peter DeVries [mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 7:15 AM To: Richard Pyle Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
Hi Rich,
I have not actually tried the #Set or occurrenceCount to see if it works as expected in a triplestore>
Assuming this is for one of those #Set occurrences, a jar of fish all identified to the level of Perciformes it could be plural.
This does not say that they are all the same species, it just says that they are some species that falls within Perciformes.
- Pete
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
Right, but that's only one of two types of "identified as Perciformes" circumstances. The other is, "there are many different species represented, but all fall within my taxon concept circumscription for Perciformes".
So the key question becomes: is your use of the word "species" in "Order Perciformes species undetermined" necessarily singular, or might it also be plural?
Aloha, Rich
_____
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:08 PM To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [tdwg-content] An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept http://www.taxonconcept.org/ Knowledge Base / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies http://about.geospecies.org/ Knowledge Base ------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Steve,
Below is an example of an explanation that was later attributed to you.
There are several similar examples that I can also track down.
This is not a conspiracy but a behavior that is very common in human organizations often referred to as cliquishness. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cliquishness
Over the years I have written emails with suggestions for the Darwin Core, yet only recently was there any mention or reference to there being a standard protocol for doing this.
And yes I did propose that we have a small group that makes up test cases etc.
While thinking about whether to attend the meeting the year I realized that there had been no real progress since last year.
Which suggests some dysfunctionality, since the public-lod list seems to be able to make real progress via their email list.
After nearly 6 years of arguing against my suggestions to adopt a more semantic approach suddenly there is consensus that this is a good idea and that we should form a group to do it?
Why isn't Bob Morris arguing against changing a standard with "millions of records", like he did with my suggestions?
Now he is an advocate for the Semantic Web?
So my question is will the new group demonstrate the same dysfunctionality as the tdwg-tag.
Since several people now seem to now accepted ideas that they previously argued against, I suspect it will also not operate in good faith and I would expect the same kind of errors, omissions and misrepresentations that were seen in the KOS report.
- Pete
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peter DeVries pete.devries@gmail.com Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:07 AM Subject: An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base http://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://about.geospecies.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------
I'm hoping the new group will be a foray into the exciting area of semantic web technologies, where we all start from a good base of having the basic technologies "accepted".
Well founded human behaviours are hard to avoid, even for the best of us. I think all we can do (as you have done Pete) is keep persisting with our viewpoints and be a little tolerant of this well documented human (mis)behaviour, as it is obviously bound to happen again to some degree.
Looking forward to the new task group.
Kevin
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2011 5:03 p.m. To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [tdwg-content] Fwd: An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified
Hi Steve,
Below is an example of an explanation that was later attributed to you.
There are several similar examples that I can also track down.
This is not a conspiracy but a behavior that is very common in human organizations often referred to as cliquishness. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cliquishness
Over the years I have written emails with suggestions for the Darwin Core, yet only recently was there any mention or reference to there being a standard protocol for doing this.
And yes I did propose that we have a small group that makes up test cases etc.
While thinking about whether to attend the meeting the year I realized that there had been no real progress since last year.
Which suggests some dysfunctionality, since the public-lod list seems to be able to make real progress via their email list.
After nearly 6 years of arguing against my suggestions to adopt a more semantic approach suddenly there is consensus that this is a good idea and that we should form a group to do it?
Why isn't Bob Morris arguing against changing a standard with "millions of records", like he did with my suggestions?
Now he is an advocate for the Semantic Web?
So my question is will the new group demonstrate the same dysfunctionality as the tdwg-tag.
Since several people now seem to now accepted ideas that they previously argued against, I suspect it will also not operate in good faith and I would expect the same kind of errors, omissions and misrepresentations that were seen in the KOS report.
- Pete
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.commailto:pete.devries@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:07 AM Subject: An individual identified to a higher group like Order, is still an instance of a species - just a species that is currently unspecified To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
What I would recommend is that you treat a specimen that is identified to an order (Perciformes) with something like the following.
Species => Order Perciformes species undetermined.
The individual is still an instance of a species, however that species has yet to be determined.
What would work best is to have some standard way of writing the green string above.
This would allow the occurrences that are of individuals identified only to the Order Perciformes, to be interpreted as a species that falls somewhere within the Order Perciformes.
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Basehttp://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Basehttp://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Basehttp://about.geospecies.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries@wisc.edumailto:pdevries@wisc.edu TaxonConcepthttp://www.taxonconcept.org/ & GeoSpecieshttp://about.geospecies.org/ Knowledge Bases A Semantic Web, Linked Open Datahttp://linkeddata.org/ Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
participants (3)
-
Kevin Richards -
Peter DeVries -
Richard Pyle