[tdwg-content] Request for vote on proposals to add Individualas a Darwin Core class and to add the term individualRemarks as a termwithin that class

[Richard Pyle]

Stan wrote:

> What happened to changing the term to organism?  I think 
> the word organism, at least strictly speaking, is 
> closer to our intention than individual.

I agree, but John pointed out that we already have individualID and
individualCount -- it would be more cumbersome to change those existing
terms to organismID and organismCount.

Steve wrote:

> I'm not sure that I agree with your analysis that the 
> definition prevents the possibility of making an 
> Identification at a rank less specific than a species.  
> My revised definition says that the Individual should 
> only include groups of organisms that are reliably 
> known to be of a single species - it doesn't say that 
> we need to know what that species is (i.e. an 
> identification to genus or family can be made with the 
> hope that someone down the line would be able to refine 
> the identification to species).  

I agree on this point.  There are two possible meanings to having an
Individual identified at a higher rank like the family "Pomacanthidae":  1)
"This is a single species within the family Pomacanthidae that I am unable
to pinpoint just now"; and 2) "All of these things are in the Pomacanthidae,
but I don't know how many species are represented."  The former would meet
your definition; the latter would not.

> Clarification on this point could be added to the comment 
> or the Google Code page, but I don't think there is a 
> problem with the definition per se.  However, if there 
> is a consensus that the definition is too restrictive, 
> I would not object to changing the wording of the 
> definition from "species (or lower taxonomic rank if it 
> exists)" to "taxon" if there were clarification added 
> to the comments or Google Code page that Individual 
> was not intended to include aggregations of multiple species.

I still prefer "taxon", but I'm not so keen on revising the definition to
indicate the intent that it should be a single species.
	
> I agree that there is a need for a term that represents 
> "collections", "bags", "aggregations", or whatever you 
> want to call an aggregation that includes multiple species.  
> But I have never intended that Individual should be that term.  
> If we expand Individual to include aggregates, then it becomes 
> unusable for its original intended purpose.  I would prefer 
> for someone to propose a different term for aggregates of 
> individuals instead of adding that function to Individual.  
> Then define the relationship of this new thing to Individual 
> as a one:many relationship (one aggregation:many Individuals).

I'm not comfortable with that approach.  Can you elaborate on this:

> If we expand Individual to include aggregates, then it becomes 
> unusable for its original intended purpose.

I don't understand why the original definition hinges on "species".  I am
especially uncomfortable with an insinuation within DwC that a "spceies" is
somehow a special taxon rank, more meaningful than higher ranks.  I know
many biologists believe this, but many do not (it's a contentious issue).  I
think DwC should remain agnostic on this point.  

I guess what I really need to understand is what are the benefits (from a
data exchange perspective) for representing Individuals as only those sets
of organisms believed to be circumscribed within a taxon concept of the rank
of species or higher.

Thinking about this does raise a slightly related issue, involving the
Identification class and the Taxon Class; but I'll include that in a
sepaeate posting.

Aloha,
Rich