[tdwg-content] Updated Rich's Two Species and additional thoughts and example on how to handle alternative conceptualizations

[Peter DeVries]

I have added some additional information the the TaxonConcept KB for Rich's
two fish

About: Centropyge fisheri se:q72fd    Orange Angelfish
http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flod.taxonconcept.org%2Fses%2Fq72fd%23Species
bit.ly    http://bit.ly/j1c7NF
About: Centropyge flavicauda se:Mj6j4 Whitetail Angelfish
http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flod.taxonconcept.org%2Fses%2FMj6j4%23Species
bit.ly http://bit.ly/mwQIyh

* Assuming the photo's are correct, these examples still need links to
representative specimens and other related data.

This was done by creating this file and adding it to the triplestore

http://assets.taxonconcept.org/fb/index.rdf

Data about the image
http://lsd.taxonconcept.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.taxonconcept.org%2Ffb%2FCentropyge_fisheri_01_480x320.jpg
 bit.ly http://bit.ly/jjmnsd

If I understand Rich correctly all these images would be instances of the
concept *Centropyge fisheri sensu lato*
*
*
*That would need it own URI and could be related by something like this:*
*
*
<http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/q72fd#Species>
txn:hasWiderAlternativeConceptualization  <
http://lod.alternativeconcepts.org/ses/10252#Species>
<http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/Mj6j4#Species>
txn:hasWiderAlternativeConceptualization  <
http://lod.alternativeconcepts.org/ses/10252#Species>

and

<http://lod.alternativeconcepts.org/ses/10252#Species
> txn:hasNarrowerTXNConceptualization <
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/q72fd#Species>
<http://lod.alternativeconcepts.org/ses/10252#Species
> txn:hasNarrowerTXNConceptualization <
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/Mj6j4#Species>

I think it is cleaner to have the overlapping concepts separated into a
different namespace.

This implies that the set of alternativeconcepts don't overlap with each
other.

So what I am proposing allows for alternative concepts.

It does not appear that The Plant List has alternative concepts, each
species has a current name and the set represents their form of a set of non
overlapping concepts.

Why isn't this controversial?

Note also that things like The Plant List don't do much to improve the lot
of those who document and describe species. You cite the authors of The
Plant List.

This is in contrast to TaxonConcept where you site the species editors and
the original author is linked via their DBpedia description. (In many cases
these will need to be added to Wikipedia, about 6,000 already)

Respectfully,

- Pete

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Email: 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20110510/e496e295/attachment.html