[SEEK-Taxon] guids

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Nico,

Thanks for the clarification!  I'll have to digest it a bit more to make
sure I understand our respective perspectives.

> But, realistically, we're not in a position to
> assign GUIDs to referenced names ONLY when we have reasons to
> believe that
> there's different taxonomic carving-up of the world implied.

On this, I agree 100%!!  But my question was really more about:  How do you
make the distinction between constructing a new GUID that represents a
different "version" of the same "concept", vs. a new GUID that represents a
different "concept".  Clearly, if there need be more than one version of the
same concept, then some difference has been identified.  If
version-differences are restricted to typographical sorts of issues of what
otherwise is clearly the same concept entity (Name Sec Reference), then the
question is about whether such sorts of issues need to be *intentionally*
tracked by different GUIDs ("intentionally", to separate out the inevitable
inadvertent duplicate entries).

However, if a "version" spans more than one "Name Sec Reference" instance,
then it seems to me to be a potentially subjective decision as to whether
we're talking about the a different version of the same concept, or two
potentially different concepts.

I guess that's why I'm not clear on what constitutes examples of "two
versions of the same concept", vs. "two separate concepts".  Perhaps some
specific examples would help clarify?

For example,  Allen et al. 1998 and Debelius et al. 2003 both treat the name
"Paracentropyge" as a distinct genus from "Centropyge"; whereas Pyle 2003
treats  Paracentropyge as a subgenus of Centropyge.

All three references include the same 3 species within Paracentropyge, so
all 3 concepts of Paracentropyge are congruent.  The first two references
apply the name "Centropyge" to the same concept circumscription (i.e.,
exclusive of the 3 Paracentropyge species); whereas the third reference
applies the name "Centropyge" to a broader concept circumscription (i.e.,
inclusive of the 3 Paracentropyge).

So, I see six distinct Concept GUID's here:

GUID	Concpet Description
-------------------------
 1	Centropyge Sec Allen et al. 1998
 2	Paracentropyge Sec Allen et al. 1998
 3	Centropyge Sec Debelius et al. 2003
 4	Paracentropyge Sec Debelius et al. 2003
 5	Centropyge Sec Pyle 2003
 6	Paracentropyge Sec Pyle 2003

The congruencies among these would be:

1=3
2=4
2=6
4=6
5=(1+2)
5=(3+4)
1 excludes 2
3 excludes 4
5 includes 6

(...and other redundant/implied logical equivalencies)

So...would any of these represent "versions" of the same concept?  For
example, would anyone ever consider 3 to be a subsequent version of 1? Or 4
a subsequent version of 2?

-- OR --

Suppose ITIS recorded the concepts of 5 and 6; and SP2K recorded the same
concepts of 5 & 6, but mis-spelled the author's name as "Pile".  Would
those, then, represent different versions of the same concepts?

i.e.: Concept 5, Version ITIS  |  Concept 5, Version SP2K  |  etc.

Before we delve into arguments about whether different versions need to be
tracked by different GUIDs, I think it would be helpful to more clearly
define the difference between two versions of the same concept, as opposed
to two separate concepts.

Sorry for the bandwidth, if this stuff is clear to everyone except me....

Aloha,
Rich

=======================================================
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Natural Sciences Database Coordinator, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html