Test implementation of eml-based species lists for LTER

[Wade Sheldon]

Matt,

Thanks. Regarding your points:

> 1) When you list several taxa that share parent taxa (e.g., they are in
> the same Class), we had intended that you could nest two subtrees
> underneath the last identical rank, so that the EML representation is
> more compact.  This means, for example, that many species would be
> clustered in each genus, many genera in each family, etc up the tree.
> The only reason that I can see to separate them is if different
> taxonomicClassification systems apply (e.g., a different authority was
> used for identifications, circumscriptions, or names), and then they
> should be in different taxonomicCoverage elements.  But if they were all
> identified using the same system, then creating one tree instead of many
> I think is better.  Are there reasons you did it as you did?

This is an artifact of how I am pre-generating xml fragments in SQL views
for populating taxonomicCoverage for ecological data sets that contain
species references (ie. one complete taxonomicClassification fragment for
each species record). I can certainly use a different approach and group
within common ranks for the purpose of list generation if that would be
preferable. The queries I use to generate csv text files return granular
taxonomic rank/value pairs, so it would be easy to program the roll-ups
within taxa using a stack approach. I'll take a stab at that and offer it as
an alternative schema for consideration.

>
> 2) You didn't include a taxonomicSystem element.  Although optional, I
> think this is a very important element.  It lets the user understand how
> you did identifications, and provides citations for field guides,
> taxonomic mongraphs, etc. that were used in identifying and classifying
> the organisms.  The more people do synthetic work, the more important
> this information is.  Bob Morris wrote an interesting email about the
> pitfalls of species lists to the seek-taxon list that you might find
> useful and interesting.  It was part of a larger thread where we were
> discussing species lists in general and their utility over the long
> term, especially with regard to species names versus species concepts.
> Here's the links that I think are most relevant:

I will add this information, along with individualName contact info for the
GCE scientists who contributed the entries, if this list proves useful.

> Species lists:
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/pipermail/seek-taxon/2004-March/000160.html
>
> and the background for that email:
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/pipermail/seek-taxon/2004-March/000159.html

Thanks for the links. I'll take a look.

--Wade