[SEEK-Taxon] Taxon Exchange Schema and GUIDs

Nico M. Franz franz at nceas.ucsb.edu
Mon Jun 14 11:24:46 PDT 2004


Hi Aimee et al.:

    awesome job!!! Since I revised the Use Cases and already added some 
stuff about authoring relationships (your "edges"), I'd endorse your 
solution to assign GUIDs to them. That said, some of the problems and 
examples you present so well weren't fully clear to me when I worked on the 
Use Cases. It's a bit better now, but not crystal-clear either.

    My basic motivation for treating relationships that way was Bob's 
little drawing at the KU meeting. Berendsohn seemed in favor of this too:

Concept 1
Concept 2
Relationship-Type
Author/Reference of that Relationship-Type
(GUID)

    As you point out, that picture soon gets more tricky, as Concepts 1 & 2 
(atomic taxa, unfortunately often turning into large molecules...) should 
each have their own GUIDs already. Then there's the issue of how far 
up/down the hierarchy a change trickles (scenario 1 - vertical 
relationships), and whether one can "make use" of someone else's 
concepts/relations without creating new, very similar yet potentially 
unconnected ones (scenario 3 - lateral relationships, possibly with 
vertical implications...).

    Let's just say: issue 1 has to do with implementing stopping rules, and 
issue 3 has to do establishing responsible practices of citing vs. 
authoring. "No Hierarchies can share Concepts anywhere above a difference 
in the tree." is a very perceptive statement. But it doesn't mean that ITIS 
couldn't e.g. accept a whole set of concepts from an expert revision "en 
bloc", for a certain time. Once ITIS "adds value", then we're running into 
the problems you point out.

    As for the stopping rules, I currently plead the 5th, and promise to 
work on it some more, with examples like those you present. A bit of that 
was in my property/constituents distinction in our pre-eScience meetings. 
Properties are rather immune to added child concepts, constituent-based 
concept definitions are more susceptible. Different scientists may prefer 
different solutions depending on the context.

    My current proposed "solution" (really an attitude) is to build as much 
as possible a system that'll let scientists make the choices of what 
could/should get a GUID in this concept/relation muddle. There will be some 
who are quite happy citing someone else's more elaborate concepts without 
implying anything new/different about their content. Think of it as a 
mosaic, most people will want express their new views in some parts of the 
tree but leave others deliberately alone. In VegBank, this is handled 
through status assignments, which may be a third element that could receive 
GUIDs, since they have authors, too.

    I think in general things are easier with the print legacy, and 
possibly harder with the digital merging/versioning of multiple 
taxonomically overlapping databases. We need to discuss this more and 
understand it better. GUIDS, well-understood relationships, and responsible 
citing/authoring practices for concepts, relationships, and statuses will 
all have to come together as a triple-treat to make it work.

Cheers,

Nico

At 11:05 AM 6/14/2004 -0500, Stewart, Aimee Marian wrote:
>Seek-Taxon,
>
>We are having a fundamental problem with the Taxonomic Exchange Schema and 
>the assumption that this is the definition of a Concept, and therefore the 
>element that a GUID is attached to.
>
>The attached HTML document describes our problems and proposes a solution.
>
>  <<TES-GUID.html>>
>Aimee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20040614/78a2efa9/attachment.htm


More information about the Seek-taxon mailing list