[tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping
Steven J. Baskauf
steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
Fri Jun 3 06:41:41 CEST 2011
My email access has been sporadic since this thread developed, so at
this point I'll respond to points made in several of the messages.
First, I should note that there has been previous discussion on this
list on a similar topic from
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html
through
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002231.html.
One can review what was said at that time rather quickly by starting on
the first linked message and clicking on the "Next Message" link until
you get to the end of the range I gave above.
My reason for the request for information that started this thread was
that I wanted to link to a URI that would anchor the name portion of a
name/sensu pair (TNU or Taxon Concept a la TCS if you prefer) as in this
RDF snippet:
<tc:nameString>Quercus rubra L.</tc:nameString>
<tc:hasName rdf:about="http://www.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php?lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:448439"/>
At this point in the discussion, I'm not actually talking about creating
a link to a taxon concept but rather to a taxon name, so some of the
issues Pete raised don't apply here (e.g. what's the "right" name for a
concept - the question here is simply what's a stable identifier for the
name) . In principle, I could probably just provide the name string and
be done with it. However, having some degree of faith that Smart,
Computer Savvy People might some day be able to use the metadata
returned by the URI (or perhaps metadata which they already have in a
triple store onsite) to do cool things like knowing that my name is the
same as an orthographic variant or that "Quercus rubra L." is basically
the same thing as "Quercus rubra", I would like to also provide a
functional URI.
As an end -user who isn't very interested in the technical issues
involving names, I don't really care what URI I use. I would prefer for
it to be widely recognized and for it to "work" (i.e. be resolvable).
In the earlier (January) thread, there was discussion about existing
identifiers. There were a number of posts, but in particular
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002258.html
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-January/002259.html
discussed the relative merits of ITIS and uBio ID numbers. My take-home
message from this was that uBio represented the largest single set of
names with assigned identifiers (see
http://gni.globalnames.org/data_sources cited in Pete's email) and that
uBio metadata provides useful references. Hence my interest in
referencing uBio ids as a URI. However, as a practical matter, the
organizations that I share images with either want ITIS TSNs (EOL and
Morphbank) or just names (Discover Life). Nobody is asking for uBio
identifiers or any other identifier.
I found Kevin's comment at
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-May/002486.html very
thought-provoking: "My thoughts are that the most likely way this will
be solved is by standard market type pressures - ie the best
solution/IDs will be used the most and 'float' to the top." I'm not
going to make a judgment about what is the "best" solution or ID. But I
would say that in "computer" history, being the "best" doesn't
necessarily mean that something will be used. Take for example, the
FOAF vocabulary. What the heck is Friend of a Friend? I would venture
to say that most of the people using the FOAF vocabulary don't know or
care. The FOAF vocabulary was the one that people started to use and
once that happened, people didn't switch even if there was something
better. I'm not familiar with the history of other stuff like YouTube
and Craig's List, but I would guess that they weren't necessarily "the
best" systems - they were just the one that the most people started
using first and once that happened, people didn't switch. I'm using
ITIS IDs because they are easy to get and the people I communicate with
want them. Whether they are the "best" or "done correctly" doesn't
matter to me as much as the fact that that they are widely recognized
and stable (and that thus far every name that I've looked for has been
in their database).
I think that one reason why this question has been on my mind is that
I've been waiting for GNUB (Global Name Use Bank) to come out. I'm not
really up on how it is going to work, but my impression is that it was
going to be based on the Global Name Index (GNI) which was mentioned in
that earlier January thread. At that point, the GNI names didn't have
any identifiers that were exposed to the public as permanent GUIDs. I'm
assuming that if GNUB refers to GNI names, they will have some kind of
identifiers. So if that happens how is the GUID recommendation 8 going
to be followed? As Kevin said in
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2011-June/002499.html "What
I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide ... is that
if you DON'T already have a record in your own database for a taxon
name/concept, then reuse an existing one. " What we have here with GNI
is a situation where none of the records have identifiers. In my mind,
the "best practice" according to recommendation 8 would be for the GNI
to reuse existing identifiers where they exist and NOT make up new
ones. This is a bit more complicated because the ITIS identifiers
(which are in common use) don't have an http URI version that is
resolvable, and while the uBio identifiers have a resolvable http URI,
it's in the form of a proxied LSID, which I've already complained is
very ugly. So I'd like to hear some ideas about how to have "reused"
identifiers in the GNI.
One thing that comes to my mind would be to have a "domain name" like
"http://purl.org/gni/" or "http://purl.org/tn/" ("tn" for "taxon name")
and to follow it with a namespace/id combination similar to what is done
with lsids. So for example "itis/19408" and "ubio/448439" could be
appended, creating http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408 and
http://purl.org/gni/ubio/448439 for "Quercus rubra L." Both URIs could
point to the same RDF and that RDF could indicate that the two
identifiers are owl:sameAs . I realize from what Bob Morris has
cautioned in the past that there are problems with owl:sameAs when the
two things aren't actually the same thing (e.g. if the uBio ID refers to
a name string only but the ITIS TSN refers to the name plus an
"accepted" status and a relationship to parent taxa). However, if there
were an understanding that the GNI only refers to name strings, then one
could still refer to http://purl.org/gni/itis/19408 as an identifier for
the name string of the thing (whatever it is) that is referred to by an
ITIS TSN of 19408. I don't think there would be a problem saying that
and the ubio ID were "owl:sameAs". Some kind of solution like this
would allow people to easily generate a resolvable URI for a name if
they were using ITIS TSNs or uBio IDs. If the name that one wanted to
use was so obscure that it was one of the 9.5 million names that uBio
has that ITIS doesn't have, then that name would only have the ubio
version. I have no idea whether this would be a good idea or not, but I
was really cringing to think about 19 million newly minted UUIDs
appended to "http://gni.globalnames.org/" and figuring out how to
connect those horrid things to the names and ITIS TSNs that I'm already
using. I think that I said this before, but using the purl.org domain
rather than one like http://gni.globalnames.org/ would in the future
allow somebody else to take over management of providing the metadata
when the GUIDs are resolved without having to deal with issues of who
"owns" the domain name.
Steve
Kevin Richards wrote:
>
> Pete,
>
> I’m not trying to say what you are doing is a waste of
> time/impossible. I actually think RDF + semantics are a good way
> forward, but this really implies that we need to rely on the semantics
> and linkages rather than having a SINGLE ID for a taxon name. (which
> is what I thought Steve was getting at). Each instance of a taxon
> name can have its own ID and then all these instances are connected
> via ontology defined semantic links. This seems more appropriate to
> me than insisting everyone uses the “Global Taxon Name ID X”.
>
> In your example of /Aedes triseriatus/ and /Ochlerotatus triseriatus/–
> these are two different names so they need two different IDs, they may
> be linked by a single taxon concept, but they are separate names. So
> which of these now 3 IDs do you expect people to use, and according to
> what source??
>
> For example if we have a name, eg the Robin, Erithacus rubecula,
> mentioned in IT IS (TSN : 559964) and also in EOL
> (www.eol.org/pages/1051567 <http://www.eol.org/pages/1051567>), also
> in GBIF (http://data.gbif.org/species/21266780), also in avibase
> (http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=C809B2B90399A43D),
> which ID are you hoping people will use?? Would you put the IT IS ID
> in your own dataset as the ID for that name – unlikely. Or would it
> be better to link them up with semantic linkages.
>
> What I take from recommendation 8 of the GUID applicability guide (as
> Steve puts is "stop making up new identifiers when somebody else
> already has one for the thing you are talking about”) is that if you
> DON’T already have a record in your own database for a taxon
> name/concept, then reuse an existing one. NOT ditch all your current
> IDs and adopt someone else’s (especially hard considering it is so
> hard to work out which if the multitude of names ad concept IDs that
> directly relates to your taxon name).
>
> I am all for limiting the number of IDs for the “same” thing, but in
> some cases it is more useful to build linkages than force this tight
> integration of data and IDs. Especially for taxon names and concepts,
> where it is complex to define if you are even talking about the “same”
> thing or not.
>
> Kevin
>
> *From:*Peter DeVries [mailto:pete.devries at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:38 p.m.
> *To:* Kevin Richards
> *Cc:* Steve Baskauf; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Gerald Guala;
> Nicolson, David; Alan J Hampson; Orrell, Thomas
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] ITIS TSNID to uBio NamebankIDs mapping
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I forgot one mention some other things that are different about my
> project.
>
> You can write a simple SPARQL query to get a list of all the
> TaxonConcept's that have ITIS ids, or all those that have ITIS and
> NCBI ID's etc.
>
> You can do this on any SPARQL endpoint that hosts the data.
>
> You can download the entire data set and run the queries on your own
> endpoint.
>
> You can write a script that runs the query and downloads the ITIS
> numbers and exports them to CSV etc.
>
> - Pete
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com
> <mailto:pete.devries at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Richards
> <RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz
> <mailto:RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>> wrote:
>
> This is exactly why this problem still exists and will be very complex
> to solve - everyone says "we should have a single ID for a specific
> taxon name, there seems to be several IDs 'out there' that refer to
> the same taxon name, so Im going to create another ID to link them all
> up" - yet another ID that no one will particularly want to follow -
> you would have to get everyone to agree that your
> combinations/integration of taxon names is the best one and hope
> everyone follows it - unlikely in this domain.
>
> Isn't this kind of what the The Plant List, and eBird already do?
>
> A difference being that they tie these to a specific name and specific
> classification.
>
> The Plant list is not really even open so it is difficult to people to
> adopt it in mass.
>
> For instance, if I manage a herbarium, how do I easily reconcile my
> species list with the entities represented in the Plant List?
>
> eBird has millions of records which implies that they have been able
> to convince the observers in the field to adopt their system. You are
> correct in that there are probably a lot of taxonomists that don't
> like their list.
>
> It differs from many of the other classifications, but remember the
> system rewards them for not agreeing. Note the difference between the
> microbial taxonomists and other taxonomists. In the case of the microbial
>
> workers, the system rewards them for solving problems not debating
> alternatives. Also, if a good idea comes out that will make it easier
> for the microbiologists to solve the problems they are rewarded for
> solving, they are less likely to care whose idea it is.
>
> Like the microbiologists, there are lots of biologists that work with
> species with the goal of addressing some non-taxonomic problem.
>
> They don't really care if the name is /Aedes triseriatus/ or
> /Ochlerotatus triseriatus, /but they do care that the identifier that
> they connect their data to is stable.
>
> In regards to the issue of market forces,I suspect (but have no
> knowledge of) that there were probably decisions made in devising
> these lists that have more to do with appeasing certain personalities
> that creating best list. With the way this system rewards people it is
> likely that the "correct" version will float to the top only after
> that person has passed away. I don't have much faith that the best
> system will always float to the top, That has a lot to do with the
> personalities and how the system rewards are setup. Theoretically, it
> is possible for one strong personality or group to force others to
> adopt their less than optimal solution - at least this seems to happen
> in other environments.
>
> Also, there are all sorts of ways that people can use the publication
> record to rewrite history. Simply cite the review paper that cites the
> original paper. Or don't cite it at all.
>
> I would have used only the ITIS TSN but if the name changes the ID
> changes. This isn't "wrong", it just does not solve my problem.
>
> * ITIS also should add the spiders from the World Spider Catalog.
>
> Another issue that I think has inhibited adoption of a common list is
> that people can't agree on a particular name or a particular
> classification.
>
> Since you can model a species concept as having many names and many
> classifications why not do so?
>
> If this idea was originally accepted, I would not have needed to
> create TaxonConcept.org.
>
> My plan has aways been to get something that works to solve some
> problems and then let some larger group take it over.
>
> In a sense, I am more like the microbiologists in that I am not being
> paid to solve this or debate this problem.
>
> I am doing it because I think something like this is needed, and it is
> an interesting and personally rewarding puzzle.
>
> - Pete
>
>
> My thoughts are that the most likely way this will be solve is by
> stnadard market type pressures - ie the best solution/IDs will be
> used the most and "float" to the top. It is easy to say that the
> global taxon name data is a mess, but if you think about it 30
> years ago taxon name data were very disparate, duplicated,
> unconnected, many with NO IDs at all. So I beleive we are making
> progress and that we will continue to do so albeit at a fairly
> slow rate.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> "I agree. This was one of the reasons that I setup TaxonConcept
> the way I did. It attempts to connect both the LOD entities and
> the foreign key based entities."
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> Email: pdevries at wisc.edu <mailto:pdevries at wisc.edu>
> TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies
> <http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases
> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> Email: pdevries at wisc.edu <mailto:pdevries at wisc.edu>
> TaxonConcept <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> & GeoSpecies
> <http://about.geospecies.org/> Knowledge Bases
> A Semantic Web, Linked Open Data <http://linkeddata.org/> Project
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--
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/20110602/9f00f6ac/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list