[tdwg-content] Background for the Individual class proposal. 3. Should an Individual also be a Collecting Unit?

[Richard Pyle]

Damn.  Sent that too soon.  Here's the rest: 

> Having made a decision about this based on functional need 
> and shared properties, it is still helpful for me to try to 
> develop a mental image of what these two things are.  In my 
> mind, I imagine the ResamplingUnitHavingDetermination (which 
> I will henceforth return to calling dwc:Individual) to be an 
> entity having a homogeneous taxonomic identity.  

I know that your original point for establishing the Class Individual was to
allow for Resampling of things -- and I think that's a key value to having a
class for Individual.  But I don't think a class Individual that is
*restricted* to things that are resampled (or resamplable) is a wise
approach.  A broader approach that serves the needs of resampled things
*and* things sampled only once would, I think, represent a better compromise
between consumer needs and provider needs.

> If the entity is removed 
> and preserved in its entirety (fish killed and put in a jar 
> of formaldehyde), it ceases to exist as a dwc:Individual and 
> begins to exist as an AccessionedUnit.  

If you're talking about these as two separate classes in DwC, I'm getting
very nervous.  There is very little ambiguity between an instance of
"Locality" and an instance of "Taxon".  Same can be said for the other DwC
classes (except, maybe, Event and Occurrence -- but I think most people
would not have any trouble deciding what those two things are).  However, I
see a lot of ambiguity between were an Individual ends, and a
BiologicalObject(=AccessionedUnit) begins.  To me that says that dividing
them into separate classes is inviting confusion and inconsistent
application of DwC to existing (and most future) datasets.

> I agree with the point that was made previously that no 
> specific taxonomic level should be placed in the definition 
> of Individual.  That would allow for the possibility that 
> Individuals could contain several different lower level taxa 
> as long as the Individual is homogeneous at the taxonomic 
> level at with the determination is applied.  I am open to 
> suggestion for how this could be accomplished.  Somehow there 
> needs to be a value for a term like "individualScope" that 
> allows one to make the kind of inferences about duplicates 
> that I described previously.  

Agreed.  I think there does need to be a dwc:individualScope term, and there
should be a recommended Controlled Vocabulary to go along with it.

> THE BOTTOM LINE
> I believe that the proposed definition for the DwC class 
> Individual should stand as it is (i.e. as a node to connect 
> multiple Occurrences to multiple Identifications).  

Unfortunately, we don't seem to be any closer to consensus on this point.
Perhaps others who have been following this dicussion can weigh in?

> If we 
> can do these things, I think we could say that a general 
> (i.e. denormalized enough to satisfy everyone who is 
> dissatisfied at the present moment) Darwin Core model is 
> "complete" to the "left" of Identification on the 
> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/pages/full-model.jpg diagram. 
>  I'm not going to touch the Taxon side right now.

I agree with everything in this diagram *except* the box labelled "multiple
tokens and types".  I'm still unclear on what this thing is, and what sorts
of properties it would have.  However, if it represents what I think it
reprersents, then I would hang it off the "Individual" class.

> Whether or not action is taken on creating a class for what 
> I'm calling "AccessionedUnit", there is no reason to hold up 
> action on my Individual class proposal if people agree with 
> the points I've made here.

Well, including you and I, there is at least 50% agreement! :-)

Maybe others can wiegh in?

Aloha,
Rich