[tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Jul 12 17:26:57 CEST 2011

Very briefly:  I support taxonomic homogeneity as well.  It's just that I
don't think there should be a restriction on the taxonomic rank of the
implied taxon.  In my mind, a group of sponges attached to a single rock can
be taxonomically homogeneous as "Porifera",  and be represented as an
instanbce of this class.  As soon as someone wants to put a more specific
taxonomic identity on the different sponges (taxonomic heterogeneity), then
there should be N-number of instances corresponding to N-number of taxa

In haste,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven J. Baskauf [mailto:steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: Paul Murray
> Cc: Richard Pyle; 'TDWG Content Mailing List'; biscicol at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: "Individual"
> I forgot to mention in my earlier email that I would like to see the
> of BiologicalEntity include clarification of whether the "single taxon" is
> required to be taxonomically homogeneous or if it is allowed to be
> taxonomically heterogeneous.  I have expressed a preference in the past
> that it be restricted to taxonomically homogeneous entities, but I believe
> that in the extended discussion that took place about six months ago, a
> definition such as the one currently on the table was understood to allow
> taxonomic heterogeneity.  I believe that as a practical matter, allowing
> taxonomic hetergeneity introduces some significant complications, but I'm
> willing to live with it if that's what it takes to get this issue
resolved.  See
> http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/ClassIndividual
> and
> http://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/wiki/TaxonomicHeterogeneity
> for my attempt to summarize the history of the extended discussion which
> took place on this subject and what I believe to be the implications of
> allowing "individuals" to be taxonomically heterogeneous or not.
> Steve
> On 7/11/2011 9:03 PM, Paul Murray wrote:
> > On 11/07/2011, at 11:58 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> >
> >>   I don't like the word
> >> "Individual", because I would like to see it applied up to at least
> >> the level of a group of individuals, if not a population
> > Another difficulty is that "Individual" is a term-of-art in RDF/OWL: an
> individual is any instance of a class. "Individual", in OWL, means pretty
> the same thing  as "entity" or "object" in other spaces.
> > If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
> by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments
> been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
> confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
> or attachments.
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> > _______________________________________________
> > tdwg-content mailing list
> > 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

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list