January 2006 - tdwg-tag - lists.tdwg.org

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Robert Huber 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Thank you Roger! I heard about DELTA and SDD seems to be very interesting! So when we are thinking about GUIDs in this context I assume you would assign a GUID on the 'contextual meaning of terms'? E.g. what open means when you describe a open umbilicus? A GUID would then direct the user to a document/ db entry which explains that ? Or would the GUID be assigned to a complete SDD description? best regards, Robert -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 16:02 An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Betreff: Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data Hi Robert, Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the 1980s and is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) - which I am fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic notion of characters and states but one of the SDD guys would be better talking about that. The DELTA home page is here: http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but seems to be down now. There is plenty on Google. The SDD wiki here: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome (SDD also uses class in a different sense.) I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states does not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open world and that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style data but we may come across it in other places. Hope this clarifies things. Roger Robert Huber wrote: Dear Roger, I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters and States. From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood what you meant.. best regards,Robert -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Betreff: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more general to GUIDs though... When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character that looks like this: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) And I score a taxon as "Rose has flower colour red". If I have given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) - dark pink (GUID_s99) I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I simply didn't have that choice before. So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a closed world model where not finding something implies that it doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you could build an inheritance model for characters and states but this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there are a few already available!). My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need straightening out! Your thoughts greatly appreciated. Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 ------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Roger Hyam 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi Robert, I think you restated the question well. I am afraid I have the question just now but not the answer ;) To me it seems to make more sense for a user to string concepts together to make a meaning rather than defining every possible contextual meaning. So if a central thesaurus defined flower and colour they could be strung together as a series of assertions in a descriptive document. In N3: mytaxa:rose myterms:has _:att . _:att rdf:type myterms:flower . _:att myterms:is myterms:red . There would still be room for specific complex predicates and objects to be defined centrally but in general this appears to allow for greater flexibility in an open system. It might not suite all tastes though. Roger Robert Huber wrote: > Thank you Roger! > > I heard about DELTA and SDD seems to be very interesting! So when we > are thinking about GUIDs in this context I assume you would assign a > GUID on the 'contextual meaning of terms'? E.g. what open means when > you describe a open umbilicus? > A GUID would then direct the user to a document/ db entry which > explains that ? Or would the GUID be assigned to a complete SDD > description? > > best regards, > Robert > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 16:02 > *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > *Betreff:* Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data > > Hi Robert, > > Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription > Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the > 1980s and is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) > - which I am fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic > notion of characters and states but one of the SDD guys would be > better talking about that. > > The DELTA home page is here: > http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but seems to be down now. > There is plenty on Google. > > The SDD wiki here: > http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome (SDD also uses > class in a different sense.) > > I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states > does not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the > 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open > world and that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style > data but we may come across it in other places. > > Hope this clarifies things. > > Roger > > > > Robert Huber wrote: >> Dear Roger, >> >> I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by >> Characters and States. >> From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes >> (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs >> to something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely >> misunderstood what you meant.. >> >> best regards,Robert >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project >> [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam >> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 >> *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU >> *Betreff:* Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data >> >> >> Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me >> thinking and I was wondering if we could cover something >> along these lines before the meeting. Please excuse me if >> this has been dealt with on the list. I will use a Delta type >> illustration to my point. This may not apply to SDD so much - >> apologies if it doesn't but I am trying to get at a general >> point. My comments may be more general to GUIDs though... >> >> When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open >> World model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search >> Google (open world) and don't find something it isn't because >> it doesn't exist - it may exist but not be found for a host >> of reasons. If I search my local SQL DB (closed world) and I >> don't find something then I can safely assume it isn't there. >> (This may be a naive description of Open vs Close worlds but >> it illustrates the point). >> >> Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a >> character that looks like this: >> >> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >> - red (GUID_s01) >> - white (GUID_s02) >> - yellow (GUID_s03) >> >> And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I >> have given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the >> GUID for the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the >> character is implied. >> >> Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have >> white or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed >> world and we know that the character never changes (or hasn't >> changed since the date of the assertion). If the choice when >> scoring had been: >> >> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >> - red (GUID_s01) >> - white (GUID_s02) >> - yellow (GUID_s03) >> - dark pink (GUID_s99) >> >> I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" >> but I simply didn't have that choice before. >> >> So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State >> uses a closed world model where not finding something implies >> that it doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system >> one can only draw conclusions from presence not absence. We >> could give GUIDs to characters and states but it doesn't get >> us very far as it doesn't permit us to re-use or extend them >> in a simple way. (sure you could build an inheritance model >> for characters and states but this rapidly becomes a complete >> ontology language of which there are a few already available!). >> >> My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State >> model doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I >> suspect this problem may occur in other descriptive areas >> where the existing model specifies noun-adjective pairs that >> I don't have experience of. Perhaps we could explore this a >> little. Perhaps my guts need straightening out! >> >> Your thoughts greatly appreciated. >> >> Roger >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------- >> Roger Hyam >> Technical Architect >> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >> ------------------------------------- >> http://www.tdwg.org >> roger(a)tdwg.org >> +44 1578 722782 >> ------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > -- > > ------------------------------------- > Roger Hyam > Technical Architect > Taxonomic Databases Working Group > ------------------------------------- > http://www.tdwg.org > roger(a)tdwg.org > +44 1578 722782 > ------------------------------------- > > -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Roger Hyam 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi Robert, Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the 1980s and is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) - which I am fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic notion of characters and states but one of the SDD guys would be better talking about that. The DELTA home page is here: http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but seems to be down now. There is plenty on Google. The SDD wiki here: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome (SDD also uses class in a different sense.) I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states does not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open world and that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style data but we may come across it in other places. Hope this clarifies things. Roger Robert Huber wrote: > Dear Roger, > > I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters > and States. > From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes > (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to > something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood > what you meant.. > > best regards,Robert > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 > *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > *Betreff:* Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data > > > Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking > and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines > before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with > on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. > This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I > am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more > general to GUIDs though... > > When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World > model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open > world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist > - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search > my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I > can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description > of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). > > Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character > that looks like this: > > Flower Colour (GUID_c01) > - red (GUID_s01) > - white (GUID_s02) > - yellow (GUID_s03) > > And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I have > given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for > the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. > > Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white > or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we > know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the > date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: > > Flower Colour (GUID_c01) > - red (GUID_s01) > - white (GUID_s02) > - yellow (GUID_s03) > - dark pink (GUID_s99) > > I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I > simply didn't have that choice before. > > So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a > closed world model where not finding something implies that it > doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only > draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to > characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't > permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you > could build an inheritance model for characters and states but > this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there > are a few already available!). > > My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model > doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this > problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing > model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience > of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need > straightening out! > > Your thoughts greatly appreciated. > > Roger > > -- > > ------------------------------------- > Roger Hyam > Technical Architect > Taxonomic Databases Working Group > ------------------------------------- > http://www.tdwg.org > roger(a)tdwg.org > +44 1578 722782 > ------------------------------------- > > > -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Robert Huber 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Dear Roger, I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters and States. >>>From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood what you meant.. best regards,Robert -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Betreff: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more general to GUIDs though... When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character that looks like this: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) And I score a taxon as "Rose has flower colour red". If I have given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) - dark pink (GUID_s99) I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I simply didn't have that choice before. So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a closed world model where not finding something implies that it doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you could build an inheritance model for characters and states but this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there are a few already available!). My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need straightening out! Your thoughts greatly appreciated. Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Bob Morris wrote: > I think the most debilitating issue is that GUIDs could only go on > categorical characters (== 'enumerated' to informaticists), and maybe > not even all of those. Absent a compelling reason, I hate to see an > abstraction that can only be applied to certain classes of what one > needs to talk Couldn't you describe (to machines), the semantics of continuous variables (or characters) in an ontology? Still, you won't be able to assign GUIDs to continuous characters, but does it make sense to do it? Wouldn't it be enough to describe the character and the range of values it can assume? I guess there must be various ontologies that model continuous variables (measurements for example) out there. > > I am about to leave for Costa Rica but will continue participating in > such discussion as develops. I BEG, PLEAD, and IMPLORE that it be > memorialized on a wiki. It is really hopeless to follow an email > argument 6 months later.... You got it. Have a nice trip, Bob! > > Bob > > > Roger Hyam wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription >> Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the 1980s and >> is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) - which I am >> fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic notion of characters >> and states but one of the SDD guys would be better talking about that. >> >> The DELTA home page is here: http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but >> seems to be down now. There is plenty on Google. >> >> The SDD wiki here: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome >> (SDD also uses class in a different sense.) >> >> I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states does >> not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the >> 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open world and >> that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style data but we may >> come across it in other places. >> >> Hope this clarifies things. >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> Robert Huber wrote: >> >>> Dear Roger, >>> >>> I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters >>> and States. >>> From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes >>> (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to >>> something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood >>> what you meant.. >>> >>> best regards,Robert >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project >>> [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam >>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 >>> *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU >>> *Betreff:* Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data >>> >>> >>> Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking >>> and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines >>> before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with >>> on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. >>> This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I >>> am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more >>> general to GUIDs though... >>> >>> When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World >>> model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open >>> world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist >>> - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search >>> my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I >>> can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description >>> of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). >>> >>> Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character >>> that looks like this: >>> >>> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >>> - red (GUID_s01) >>> - white (GUID_s02) >>> - yellow (GUID_s03) >>> >>> And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I have >>> given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for >>> the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. >>> >>> Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white >>> or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we >>> know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the >>> date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: >>> >>> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >>> - red (GUID_s01) >>> - white (GUID_s02) >>> - yellow (GUID_s03) >>> - dark pink (GUID_s99) >>> >>> I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I >>> simply didn't have that choice before. >>> >>> So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a >>> closed world model where not finding something implies that it >>> doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only >>> draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to >>> characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't >>> permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you >>> could build an inheritance model for characters and states but >>> this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there >>> are a few already available!). >>> >>> My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model >>> doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this >>> problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing >>> model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience >>> of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need >>> straightening out! >>> >>> Your thoughts greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> Roger Hyam >>> Technical Architect >>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >>> ------------------------------------- >>> http://www.tdwg.org >>> roger(a)tdwg.org >>> +44 1578 722782 >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------- >> Roger Hyam >> Technical Architect >> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >> ------------------------------------- >> http://www.tdwg.org >> roger(a)tdwg.org >> +44 1578 722782 >> ------------------------------------- >> > > -- > Robert A. Morris > Professor of Computer Science > UMASS-Boston > ram(a)cs.umb.edu > http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg > http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram > phone (+1)617 287 6466 >

1 0

Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Roger Hyam 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more general to GUIDs though... When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character that looks like this: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I have given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: Flower Colour (GUID_c01) - red (GUID_s01) - white (GUID_s02) - yellow (GUID_s03) - dark pink (GUID_s99) I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I simply didn't have that choice before. So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a closed world model where not finding something implies that it doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you could build an inheritance model for characters and states but this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there are a few already available!). My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need straightening out! Your thoughts greatly appreciated. Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Bob Morris 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

I agree with Roger and had a brief skype argument ("skarg"?) with Kevin about my position which moved me a little, but not much, closer to his. I think the most debilitating issue is that GUIDs could only go on categorical characters (== 'enumerated' to informaticists), and maybe not even all of those. Absent a compelling reason, I hate to see an abstraction that can only be applied to certain classes of what one needs to talk I am about to leave for Costa Rica but will continue participating in such discussion as develops. I BEG, PLEAD, and IMPLORE that it be memorialized on a wiki. It is really hopeless to follow an email argument 6 months later.... Bob Roger Hyam wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription > Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the 1980s and > is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) - which I am > fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic notion of characters > and states but one of the SDD guys would be better talking about that. > > The DELTA home page is here: http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but > seems to be down now. There is plenty on Google. > > The SDD wiki here: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome > (SDD also uses class in a different sense.) > > I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states does > not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the > 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open world and > that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style data but we may > come across it in other places. > > Hope this clarifies things. > > Roger > > > > Robert Huber wrote: > >> Dear Roger, >> >> I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters >> and States. >> From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes >> (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to >> something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood >> what you meant.. >> >> best regards,Robert >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project >> [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam >> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 >> *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU >> *Betreff:* Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data >> >> >> Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking >> and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines >> before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with >> on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. >> This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I >> am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more >> general to GUIDs though... >> >> When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World >> model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open >> world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist >> - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search >> my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I >> can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description >> of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). >> >> Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character >> that looks like this: >> >> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >> - red (GUID_s01) >> - white (GUID_s02) >> - yellow (GUID_s03) >> >> And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I have >> given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for >> the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. >> >> Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white >> or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we >> know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the >> date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: >> >> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >> - red (GUID_s01) >> - white (GUID_s02) >> - yellow (GUID_s03) >> - dark pink (GUID_s99) >> >> I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I >> simply didn't have that choice before. >> >> So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a >> closed world model where not finding something implies that it >> doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only >> draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to >> characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't >> permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you >> could build an inheritance model for characters and states but >> this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there >> are a few already available!). >> >> My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model >> doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this >> problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing >> model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience >> of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need >> straightening out! >> >> Your thoughts greatly appreciated. >> >> Roger >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------- >> Roger Hyam >> Technical Architect >> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >> ------------------------------------- >> http://www.tdwg.org >> roger(a)tdwg.org >> +44 1578 722782 >> ------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > -- > > ------------------------------------- > Roger Hyam > Technical Architect > Taxonomic Databases Working Group > ------------------------------------- > http://www.tdwg.org > roger(a)tdwg.org > +44 1578 722782 > ------------------------------------- > -- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram(a)cs.umb.edu http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1)617 287 6466

1 0

Re: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes
by Robert Huber 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Those who are intersted in assigning a GUID to descriptive etc data might take a look at http://www.std-doi.de. This is a german based project which uses DOIs to identify datasets. Participating data centers hold data of almost any thinkable kind: meteorolgy, satellite images, geology, paleontology, oceanography etc.. Many questions are answered there and the process of assigning GUIDs to real digital objects is not that complicated (Ok, I know the details..). Maybe during the first meeting the group should focus on the topics Ricardo proposed as they are the 'core problems' and possibly on the technology decision? Workshop 2 could possibly be more open? best regards, Robert > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Kevin Thiele > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2006 23:07 > An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Betreff: Re: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes > > > Ecological and monitoring data are usually descriptive in the broad sense, > so perhaps both these and morphological data fall under the > rubric of GUIDs > for descriptive data. > > -k > > -----Original Message----- > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Jones > Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2006 8:50 AM > To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: Re: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes > > I think a focus on GUIDs for ecological and environmental montitoring > and experimental data would be good. Ricardo wrote to me about this > topic before but I was unable to respond at the time. Nevertheless, I > would be happy to participate in such a group, and even take some > responsibility if others are interested. Anyone else interested in this > topic? > > Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Ricardo Scachetti > > Pereira > > Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 11:01 PM > > To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > > Subject: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes > > > > Dear GUID-1 Workshop Participants, > > > > On the 2nd day of our workshop, we are planning on having two > > breakout groups to discuss in parallel the specific needs of different > > data domains regarding GUIDs. So far we have two breakout > groups planned: > > > > - Taxonomic Names and Concepts, to be convened by Jessie Kennedy (thanks > > Jessie for kindly accepting our invitation!), and > > - Specimen and Collection Data, to be convened by me. > > > > So I have some requests regarding the breakout groups: > > > > 1) Please choose the group you would like to participate based on your > > work and affinity. I will make a headcount (probably via a show of > > hands) on the first day of the workshop so we can allocate the > > appropriate room for each group. > > > > 2) We need volunteers to take notes about our discussions and the > > decisions we make during the breakout and the main sessions. We need at > > least one volunteer for each breakout session and one or more to take > > notes during the main sessions. We need to know who the volunteers will > > be before the meeting. > > > > 3) If you feel that we should have additional breakout groups to discuss > > specific needs of other data domains (ecological, observation, and > > genomic data, for example), please let me know as soon as possible, so > > we can discuss the possibility and make the appropriate arrangements > > (recruit a convener, a secretary, and participants, allocate a > room, etc). > > > > Thank you very much for your help. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ricardo > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Matt Jones Ph: 907-789-0496 > jones(a)nceas.ucsb.edu SIP #: 1-747-626-7082 > National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) > UC Santa Barbara http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes
by Kevin Thiele 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Ecological and monitoring data are usually descriptive in the broad sense, so perhaps both these and morphological data fall under the rubric of GUIDs for descriptive data. -k -----Original Message----- From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Matt Jones Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2006 8:50 AM To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes I think a focus on GUIDs for ecological and environmental montitoring and experimental data would be good. Ricardo wrote to me about this topic before but I was unable to respond at the time. Nevertheless, I would be happy to participate in such a group, and even take some responsibility if others are interested. Anyone else interested in this topic? Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Ricardo Scachetti > Pereira > Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 11:01 PM > To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: Breakout groups and volunteers to take notes > > Dear GUID-1 Workshop Participants, > > On the 2nd day of our workshop, we are planning on having two > breakout groups to discuss in parallel the specific needs of different > data domains regarding GUIDs. So far we have two breakout groups planned: > > - Taxonomic Names and Concepts, to be convened by Jessie Kennedy (thanks > Jessie for kindly accepting our invitation!), and > - Specimen and Collection Data, to be convened by me. > > So I have some requests regarding the breakout groups: > > 1) Please choose the group you would like to participate based on your > work and affinity. I will make a headcount (probably via a show of > hands) on the first day of the workshop so we can allocate the > appropriate room for each group. > > 2) We need volunteers to take notes about our discussions and the > decisions we make during the breakout and the main sessions. We need at > least one volunteer for each breakout session and one or more to take > notes during the main sessions. We need to know who the volunteers will > be before the meeting. > > 3) If you feel that we should have additional breakout groups to discuss > specific needs of other data domains (ecological, observation, and > genomic data, for example), please let me know as soon as possible, so > we can discuss the possibility and make the appropriate arrangements > (recruit a convener, a secretary, and participants, allocate a room, etc). > > Thank you very much for your help. > > Best regards, > > Ricardo -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matt Jones Ph: 907-789-0496 jones(a)nceas.ucsb.edu SIP #: 1-747-626-7082 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) UC Santa Barbara http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Use-case for multimedia objects
by Ricardo Scachetti Pereira 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Dear Bob, At this stage, we are very interested in exploring GUID use-cases, specially those that may impose special requirements to the system. What you briefly described has the potential to fall into that category. Would you mind elaborating a bit on it? First of all, I think it is important to record that images and multimedia objects in general can be represented as actual data in LSIDs for example (as opposed as the other data objects for which we are planning on using only metadata). You also raise the question of what gets a GUID, which seems to be a recurrent issue for GUIDs in general. I would say that whatever objects that are useful to applications can get an id. In other words, if it is important to identify individual pieces of a composite object, then it's fair to issue GUID to them and link them all in the metadata. The metadata would also tell what is the object type (the whole or each part). Is that applicable to your case? Finally, I don't quite understand the following sentence: "JPEG2000 presents special problems because its serializations can have multiple media and XML packages in a single file." Could you elaborate on it? Regards, Ricardo PS.: If you'd like, you can create a new use-case directly on the GUID Wiki, on the following page: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUIDUseCases. If you decide to enter a new use-case in that page, you may as well create another category for them (such as Multimedia objects or descriptive data). If you'd rather elaborate on this on the list, I can summarize your comments on the wiki later. Bob Morris wrote: > Somewhere in a monitoring and/or a descriptive data breakout or both, > don't forget to consider multimedia objects. JPEG2000 presents special > problems because its serializations can have multiple media and XML > packages in a single file. All are addressable with internet URLs which > depend on the server offering the file. Which gets the GUID, the file > object or the content pieces? This must be a generic GUID problem for > composite objects. > > Sounds like an interesting party. Kevin will bring me the news when we > meet up in Agadir. > > Bob >

1 0