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

[Richard Pyle]

> At this point, it is not clear to me that there are any 
> other existing DwC terms that should be moved to a new 
> Individual class.  

My feeling is that, if an Individual class was established, it would be a
logical place for dwc:preparations, dwc:previousIdentifications,
dwc:associatedSequences, and possibly dwc:disposition (depending on how,
exactly, that term is scoped).

I was tempted to also add dwc:catalogNumber and dwc:otherCatalogNumbers; but
now I'm wondering why those two terms are not included among the
"Record-level Terms".  Does anyone know the logic behind why things like
dwc:institutionCode and dwc:collectionCode (and related terms) are in
"Record-level Terms", while dwc:catalogNumber and dwc:otherCatalogNumbers
are in the Occurrence class?

> Originally, I suggested that individualCount 
> should be placed in that class, but I no longer think so.  
> Counting the number of individuals is really something that 
> happens when an Occurrence takes place and a small cohesive 
> group of a single taxon (e.g. wolf pack or plant population) 
> could have an individualCount that changes over time.  

Hmmm...I'm not sure.  If "Individual" can range fron a single organism, to
several organisms, to a single colony of organisms, to a defined population
of organisms (possibly up to an entire taxon), then how would you indicate
the "scope" of organisms represented by a single instance of "Individual"?
Wouldn't individualCount serve this function?  Or, maybe you're right that
individualCount should describe the Occurrence, and another term (e.g.,
"individualScope") would be needed to define the scope of the "Individual"
instance.

> As was discussed earlier in on the email list, the xxxxxxID 
> terms probably really belong in the Record-level terms 
> category rather than being listed within particular 
> classes.  So I don't believe that dwc:individualID 
> should be in the proposed class either.  

I missed that conversation.  This doesn't seem right to me, but if the
consensus is that the xxxID terms are all best treated as "Record-level
Terms", then certainly "individualiD" should be treated accordingly.

Aloha,
Rich