[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking

[Kevin Richards]

Yep, sorry about that - got carried away.

I always look at http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ when looking at DwC stuff.
The http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon is just for discussions - so does not include all the DwC terms/fields etc.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 9:36 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


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
>


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