[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

[Kevin Richards]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I have struggled to keep up with this thread, but it sounds to me like the benefit of the Individual class/properties is to be able to link together various web resources that refer to data obtained from the same individual in some manner, so we probably need terms that allow the description of how these individuals, or parts of individuals relate to each other.  The Scope idea will help, but maybe there is a need for terms like "partOfIndividual", "derivedFromIndividual"?

Then, I suppose we are heading into interaction territory, so we then need to model how interactions between individuals can be defined - eg "foundOnHostIndividual" ...

This is starting to sound quite appealing, as I think the "Individual" resources could be seen as the atoms to defining occurrences, in the same way that NameUsages are the atoms for defining Taxon Names and Concepts.

Kevin


-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 7:46 a.m.
To: 'Steve Baskauf'; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [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

> 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


_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

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