I am concerned that someone will now look at my proposals and say "isn't this just a rehash of what was proposed in the TDWG LSID-GUID Document and at the 2009 TDWG meeting?"
When in fact the opposite is true.
There are parts of this draft that are simply reiterations of what I have proposed in several talks and online.
For example " "The ambiguities inherent in taxon name usage are described elsewhere. For example, biodiversity researchers ask whether two specimens with different name strings are believed to be of the same taxonomic group. The availability of identifiers for name strings, published names and taxon concepts...
This advantage is best illustrated by an example:
One biologist may refer to a specimen of the Eastern Tree Hole Mosquito as Ochlerotatus triseriatus. Another may refer to that same species as Aedes triseriatus. They both agree they are talking about the same species concept; however, they are assigning different taxonomic hypotheses to that species concept.
In addition the diagram of linked data basically mirrors what I have had in the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base for nearly a year.
However, it fails to mention GeoSpecies at all.
I'd recommend that the draft follow scientific standards and acknowledge previous work.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
------------------------------------------------------------