Thanks Kevin,
That would be great. I am probably reading too much into a series of coincidences, but I have had things happen in the past that have made me somewhat wary.
I had thought that my work was on track to be an experimental part of the GNI via the EOL, but when I did not see it anywhere I got concerned. :-\
Respectfully,
- Pete
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Kevin Richards < RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
I, for one, am happy to reference Pete's work, as it it very relevant to the LSID-GUID work. And I would also be keen to see some collaboration here.
However, I'm not sure how much you can claim as your own original ideas, Pete, as these topics have been discussed in TDWG for as long as I have been involved anyway (5 years ish) - apart from the linked data part, which is a fairly recent topic. (although RDF and semantic technologies have been discussed since we started looking at LSIDs, 3-4 years ago) The TDWG community is also a very diverse group of people, all with their own ideas, approaches and opinions, so it is hard (and fraught with error) to generalise about the behaviour of TDWG members.
How about a reference to Geospecies in the linked data section?
Kevin
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries [pete.devries@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2009 1:58 p.m. To: Technical Architecture Group mailing list; lgtg@lists.gbif.org Subject: [tdwg-tag] LSID-GUID Draft Document
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.
[http://assets.geospecies.org/images/SpeciesConceptURI.png]
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.
Pete DeVrieshttp://spiders.entomology.wisc.edu/pjd/index.html Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: pdevries@wisc.edumailto:pdevries@wisc.edu GeoSpecies Knowledge Basehttp://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Basehttp://about.geospecies.org/
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