[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Jun 10 23:45:11 CEST 2010
Sorry - I meant to post this URL:
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:36 AM
> To: 'Kevin Richards'; 'Peter DeVries'
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; 'Jerry Cooper'
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
>
>
> Well, for starters, zoobank is not in the business of dealing
> with taxon concepts -- so I wouldn't use that domain name in
> the example.
>
> Also, what *is* the correct pl;ace to get DwC? Peter was
> using http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon; but
> I've been using http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/index.htm. Now I'm
> thoroughly confused....
>
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Richards [mailto:RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:22 AM
> > To: Richard Pyle; 'Peter DeVries'
> > Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Jerry Cooper
> > Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
> >
> > I think my main point here was the fact that in most
> schemas we (TDWG,
> > et al) have created, we have not really provided an ID
> field for (2).
> > As you said (2) is the "concept definition" but there is no
> ID field
> > (that I have come across), for referring to it explicitly.
> >
> > My thought would be to have something like:
> >
> > http://zoobank.org/taxonconcept/12345-ABCDE
> >
> > that returns data for the "whole" taxon concept (ie 2), not
> just the
> > Name + Reference
> >
> > I think it is really a data/technical issue - ie the way the
> > schemas/models are defined, a Taxon Concept ID includes, and only
> > includes, a Name ID and a Reference ID. This is based on my
> > understanding of TCS - perhaps DwC is different??
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> > Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:03 a.m.
> > To: Kevin Richards; 'Peter DeVries'
> > Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Jerry Cooper
> > Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
> >
> > > This is something that has been slightly confused over the
> > years, ie
> > > there
> > seems to be 2 ways of defining a "taxon concept":
> > > 1. A Taxon Name (nomenclatural data) + Literature Reference
> > - ie Name
> > > X as
> > defined in article Y
> > > 2. As you have said a grouping of data that define a
> taxon concept
> > > (Name +
> > Reference + Synonyms + Type Specimen + Protologue, .)
> >
> > I don't think of these as two different ways of defining a
> concept. I
> > see
> > #1 as a way of *pointing to* a taxon concept definition, and
> > #2 as the concept definition itself. Basically, #1 (usage
> > instance) is effectively a container or an identifier for the taxon
> > concept definition.
> >
> > However, there is somewhat of a dichotmy in the way that taxon
> > concepts are defined - one is by included members (i.e., specimens,
> > presumably including at least one name-bearing type specimen, from
> > which a name-label is derived), the other is by properties (i.e.
> > characters -- morphologic, genetic, or otherwise). In
> practice, most
> > concept definitions include both.
> > But I think the "definition" of the concept (i.e., the
> circumscription
> > boundaries) is the same for both -- it's just that those boundaries
> > can be articulated in different ways (i.e., by examplar
> members, and
> > by purported properties).
> >
> > > 1 has been covered quite well with the various schemas we
> > have come up
> > > with over the years, but I think these schemas have failed
> > to capture
> > > 2 very well (the data fields are there, but the
> encompassing ID is
> > > not),
> > ie
> >
> > Agreed -- sort of. I think the schemas are there, but have
> not been
> > organized appropriately (yet). See below.
> >
> >
> > > TaxonName ID = N1, FullName = "Aus bus"
> > > Reference ID = R1, Citation = "Richards, how to define a
> > taxon concept"
> > > TaxonConcept ID = C1, NameID = N1, ReferenceID = R1 BUT,
> the taxon
> > > concept C1 does not encompass all related data that defines
> > that concept (synonyms etc)
> >
> > No, but it could, through a network of linkages, as I tried to
> > describe in one of my recent posts.
> >
> > > To do that we need more Concept Ids and relationships
> between these
> > concepts, eg
> >
> > Exactly! And we need a schema-based process to capture the
> relevant
> > information (diagnoses, etc.), anchored to the Concept Ids. At a
> > basic level, Plazi/TaxonX does this.
> > However, it usually only goes as far as the text-blob. To
> parse the
> > text blob, we need to either look towards SDD (for character-based
> > concept definition stuff) or DwC/Occurrence (for specimen-based
> > concept definition stuff).
> >
> > > ConceptRelationship ID=CR1 ConceptFromID=C2, ConceptToID =C1,
> > RelationshipType='has preferred name'
> >
> > Yes, I agree we need this as well! But again, I see this
> as a way of
> > networking pointers to taxon concept defintions, not describing the
> > definitions themselves.
> >
> > Man, these conversations really hurt my brain.... :-)
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list