[SEEK-Taxon] Assertions

[xianhual@email.unc.edu]

Hi,

I found something confusing here other than 'Assertion'. 'TOC','TCS' 
and 'TES' are often used by different people in different times and 
places. Are they the same thing? Could some one please give a little 
bit more details? Thank you in advance.

Xianhua

 
Quoting Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>:

> 
> Hi Nico,
> 
> Yes, I agree that "Assertion" is excessively ambiguous in both
> contexts
> (Taxonomer & TCS).  If I had been smarter when drafting the Taxonomer
> MS, I
> would have chosen something more explicit, like
> "TaxonNameStatusAssertion",
> or picked something that had already been defined (like "Potential
> Taxon") -- but there's always a risk in using an existing term in a
> slightly
> different way.
> 
> I am perfectly happy to change the term in Taxonomer -- not just to
> avoid
> conflict with TCS, but to come up with something more explicit.  But
> I worry
> that doing so at this point might lead to more confusion.
> 
> The more immediate concern for me is that I plan to give a
> presentation at
> TDWG in October describing Taxonomer, and I don't want to create
> confusion
> with discussions about the TCS by using the same word with different
> meanings.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nico Franz [mailto:franz at nceas.ucsb.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:47 AM
> > To: Richard Pyle; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org
> > Subject: Re: [SEEK-Taxon] Assertions
> >
> >
> > Hi Rich:
> >
> >     it's fascinating how we can sometimes understand each other
> using
> > ambiguous, uninformative, or even "wrong" terms. I agree with you
> > that the
> > TOC's use of the term "assertion" pays little respect to your
> > previous work
> > on Taxonomer. Just as importantly, I find the term rather
> uninformative,
> > when more informative choices were clearly available. The TOC's use
> of
> > "assertion" is meant to denote the establishment of a RELATIONSHIP
> among
> > (minimally) two concepts, although you wouldn't know that from its
> > name."Third-party assertion" helps a bit, but still misses the
> > main point I
> > think. People also sometimes call these relationship assessments
> "concept
> > synonymies", which is equally unfortunate, because "nym" means
> name, not
> > concept. What I could further read into "assertion" is that since
> one
> > "merely asserts something", the "assertion" is not quite on the
> same
> > intellectual level as a "real concept". I'm clearly pushing it
> here, but
> > that's what *I*, *now*, read between the lines.
> >
> >     So in sum, the TOC's use of "assertion" violates some sense
> > of priority
> > (causing confusion), is unnecessarily uninformative as to what
> > "assertions"
> > are, and possibly even labels them as something less scientific,
> less
> > reliable. I would like us to change all these potential
> implications by
> > calling them what they are: CONCEPT RELATIONSHIPS, or links, or
> > connections, edges in graph theory I believe. So then one could
> author
> > either a concept or a relationship, and be as assertive as one
> wants to
> > be.  ;-)
> >
> >     That said, I think that when you're in the process of
> developing both
> > an application and a terminology, some temporary mismatches are
> bound to
> > happen, and sometimes don't matter all that much. In our conference
> calls
> > we've had some success talking about "AtomicTaxa", when those are
> really
> > concepts without relationships to others in their definition. So
> > let's see
> > where the dice fall with "assertions".
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nico
> >
> >
> >
> > At 04:06 PM 8/12/2004 -1000, Richard Pyle wrote:
> >
> > >Greetings all,
> > >
> > >I'm sorry I missed the last conference call -- I was up late the
> night
> > >before, and a stampede of elephants in my bedroom (much less my
> > alarm clock)
> > >wouldn't have gotten me out of bet that early.....
> > >
> > >I've seen the emails RE the proposed TDWG transfer schema, but
> > haven't yet
> > >had a chance to study them in detail.  However, James Ytow just
> > pointed out
> > >to me that it includes the term "Assertion", but defined
> differently from
> > >how it is defined in the Taxonomer data model
> > >(http://www.phyloinformatics.org/pdf/1.pdf) -- where it is the
> > core central
> > >element of the taxonomic model.  In Taxonomer, the "Assertion"
> > instance is
> > >the intersection of a Name and a Reference -- an assertion about
> the
> > >nomenclatural status of a name, and a "handle" to the implied
> > concept.  In
> > >the proposed transfer schema, it is used as a 3rd-party
> > assertion about the
> > >relationships between two concepts.  In other words, in Taxonomer
> it
> > >represents a handle to a concept, whereas in the transfer schema
> > it is used
> > >for a mapping between two existing concepts.
> > >
> > >My concern is that discussions about these data models and schemas
> are
> > >already confusing enough with such homonymous words as "class",
> > "concept",
> > >"reference", etc. -- that we probably want to avoid further
> confusion by
> > >creating new homonyms.  I'm not possesive of the term "Assertion"
> -- I've
> > >often thought that I probably should have used "PotentialTaxon"
> or
> > >"PotentialConcept" or "NameReference" or something else a little
> more
> > >explicit, and I wouldn't mind changing it in my model.
> > Unfortunately, I've
> > >already published it as "Assertion", and it's hard for me to
> retract that
> > >definition now.
> > >
> > >Does anyone else have similar concerns? As I said, I'd sooner
> change the
> > >term I use in the Taxonomer model to something else, than be faced
> with
> > >speaking of "Assertion sensu Taxonomer" vs. "Assertion sensu
> > TOC", etc. --
> > >so if "Assertion" is really the best term in the TOC context, I'll
> do
> > >whatever I can to retract my use of "Assertion" in Taxonomer.  Or,
> if
> > >another term can be used in the TOC context, that would make my
> > life a bit
> > >easier.
> > >
> > >I've got a very busy week ahead of me, so I'm not sure how much
> time I'll
> > >have to digest the TCS documentation -- but as soon as I get a
> > chance, I'll
> > >go over it in detail and provide any feedback I might have.
> > >
> > >Aloha,
> > >Rich
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >seek-taxon mailing list
> > >seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org
> > >http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-taxon
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> seek-taxon mailing list
> seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-taxon
>