[tdwg-content] Fwd: [Fwd: Re: If you need something for referring to a population, then it is probably best to do it as a related class]

[Nico Cellinese]

First of all, I apologize to Pete for misinterpreting one of his main statements, but I guess I was misled but everything else he stated above it.

Secondly, I wanted to ask the same question that Rich just did.  The model Pete's proposes seems to work well in a very straightforward context like the bee example.  In more complex instances like when concepts overlap in part or nothing is so obvious, I am anxious to see how this model scales. The representation of concepts may not be so seamlessly recovered by this logic model.  Unless I am missing something, in which case at least I am not alone :-)

> Alas, I don't have time to dive-in to this conversation in full (I still owe
> too many things to too many people)

How is that GNUB coming along? ;-) 

Nico

> 
> Very quickly:
> 
>> The model supports links to alternative concepts. The uniprot and bio2rdf,
> and DBpedia 
>> URI's can be considered closely related concepts.
>> The way this works ideally is that the identifier of this insect (from
> TDWG) makes the assertion that
>> this
> observation http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc
> 6552.html
>> represents an instance of this
> concept http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species
> 
> But if I understand you correctly, alternate concepts don't exist within
> taxonconcept.org; but only as links to other repositories of concepts, that
> may or may not be congruent with those represented in taxonconcept.org.  If
> that's the case, then what happens when the person who identifies the
> observation
> [http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/0da685c9-9cdc-4dff-baf3-38d1bdbc6552.html]
> doesn't agree with the concept represented in
> [http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/z9oqP#Species] -- or any other concept
> represented in taxonconcept.org?  Do they have to hunt around through the
> other repositories to find the right one?
> 
> Let me give an example.  The type specimen of Centropyge fisheri  was
> collected in Hawaii (e.g.,
> http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1377454029 ). The type
> specimen of C. flavicauda  was collected in the South China Sea, and is
> known throughout the rest of the tropical Pacific (e.g.,
> http://pbs.bishopmuseum.org/images/JER/detail.asp?ID=-1339602635).
> 
> Many taxonomists have treated these two species as distinct and valid; and
> hence two separate taxon concepts representing populations in Hawaii, and in
> the broader Pacific, respectively.  Other taxonomists have considered them
> to be conspecific, and thus only one species throughout the tropical
> Pacific, including Hawaii.  The name "fisheri" has priority, so the concept
> labeled as "Centropyge fisheri, sensu stricto" refers to the species concept
> consisting of individuals from Hawaii, and the concept labeled as
> "Centropyge fisheri, sensu lato" refers to the species concept consisting of
> individuals throughout the tropical Pacific (including Hawaii).
> 
> If I understand you correctly, there would be only one of these two concepts
> represented in taxonconcept.org.  For the sake of argument, let's say it was
> the sensu lato concept (which is the more modern interpretation, lumping the
> two historically distinct species).  What if someone made an observation in
> Johnston Atoll, and they are a splitter (i.e. recognizing Hawaii C. fisheri
> as a distinct species from Pacific C. flavicauda), and wanted to identify
> their specimen to the concept that *excludes* the Hawaii population (i.e.,
> C. flavicauda)?  Would they be able to do so?  Or would they have to look
> through uniprot and bio2rdf, DBpedia, etc. to find a species-level concept
> that matches the one they want to represent the observation as?
> 
> Apologies if I have completely misunderstood this conversation...but at the
> very least, perhaps a concrete example (with pictures!) might help to
> disambiguate some of this thread.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> 
>