[tdwg-content] tdwg-content Digest, Vol 20, Issue 17

Wed Nov 3 21:27:56 CET 2010

Dean,
I intended to comment on your earlier post but got caught up in other 
threads and hadn't yet taken the time.  I know on at least one previous 
occasion this issue of mixed aggregations was discussed on the list but 
I spent about 15 minutes looking for it in the archives this morning and 
couldn't find it.  I remember somebody pointed out some software that 
allows places within an image to be demarcated (i.e. call the image an 
aggregation and define spots in it as Individuals).   Also, I tried to 
handle the issue of tokens (or evidence) that are derived from other 
tokens in my paper (see 
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/pages/conceptual-scheme-insect.gif for 
an example) by using sernec:derivedFrom and sernec:derivativeOccurrence 
(see http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms.htm).  But I think my 
approach needs to be rethought in the context of separating tokens from 
occurrences.  I am very keen to work this out, but I really don't thing 
that piling this onto Individual is the way to do it.  I'm in the middle 
of running and photographing gels at the moment but look forward to 
continuing the discussion on these points at a later time.

Steve

Dean Pentcheff wrote:
> Leveraging off my earlier toss-in of the parent-child collection 
> scheme, let me toss in this observation.
>
> I'll preface it by saying that although it's a situation we deal with 
> in reality, my gut impulse is that it should probably _not_ be 
> accomodated by the "Individual" concept under development.
>
> We have many records for un- or partially-sorted lots of marine 
> invertebrate samples. Often we can make very rough determinations of 
> what are in those lots (e.g., we can see that a jar contains 
> ophiuroids, gastropods, sphaeromatid isopods, red algae, and larval 
> fish). Critically, these are multiple particular and disjunct parts of 
> the taxonomic hierarchy, not just a single "highest containing rank" 
> determination.
>
> It turns out to be super-useful to record that very rough 
> determination because (as alluded to by Rich) we can then 
> appropriately make that jar available to visitors seeking particular 
> taxa (and save them the trouble of grubbing through shelves of jars 
> where we already "know" there's nothing of interest to them).
>
> Right now, we do _not_ conflate this rough determination with a Real 
> Taxonomic Determination (®™ and all that): they are two completely 
> separate fields. So to find all the jars we know have ophiuroids, one 
> does indeed have to search both the real taxonomic determination field 
> as well as the rough-determination (text) field (if one wants to 
> include unsorted lots in the quest).
>
> I'm introducing this case more with the idea that it may usefully help 
> define the outer limits for "Individual" -- something that the 
> "Individual" concept should _not_ accomodate. I can't really wrap my 
> head around how the developing "Individual" concept can usefully be 
> mutilated to accomodate this case.
>
> -Dean
> -- 
> Dean Pentcheff
> pentcheff at gmail.com <mailto:pentcheff at gmail.com>
> dpentche at nhm.org <mailto:dpentche at nhm.org>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Richard Pyle 
> <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org <mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:
>
>     > I think if I'm understanding what John wrote,
>     > he was going to substitute "taxon" for "species
>     > (or lower taxonomic rank if it exists)" with
>     > the understanding that Individual is not
>     > intended to be used for aggregates of
>     > different taxa.  That would solve this problem, right?
>
>     It depends on what you mean by "different taxa".  If you are using
>     the word
>     "taxa" here to imply "species or lower ranks", than I don't think
>     it would
>     solve the problem.  But if you mean it in a generic way, then I'm
>     OK with
>     that.  By "in a generic way", suppose I had a trawl sample or a
>     plankton tow
>     sample that included unidentified organisms from multiple phyla,
>     all of
>     which are animals.  I should not be prevented from representing this
>     aggregate as an "Individual", with an identification instances
>     linked to a
>     taxon concept labelled as "Animalia".  This means the contents of the
>     Individual all belong to a single taxon (Animalia), and therefore
>     it does
>     not violate the condition excluding aggregates of different taxa. An
>     instance of Individual so identified would be almost useless for many
>     purposes, I agree -- but it's easy enough to filter such
>     Individuals out by
>     looking at dwc:taxonRank of the Taxon to which the Individual was
>     identified. Also, it's not useless for all purposes, because a
>     botanist
>     would like to know that s/he doesn't have to look through that
>     sample to
>     find stuff of interest.
>
>     I guess my point is, there should not be any rank-based
>     requirement for the
>     implied taxon circumscription of an "Individual".
>
>     Rich
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     tdwg-content mailing list
>     tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org>
>     http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>

-- 
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences

postal mail address:
VU Station B 351634
Nashville, TN  37235-1634,  U.S.A.

delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235

office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582,  fax: (615) 343-6707
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101103/027eb057/attachment.html 