[SEEK-Taxon] guids

[dave thau]

Hi Rich,

Functionally, urn:lsid:taxaserver.org:3232:1 and
urn:lsid:taxaserver.org:3232:2 are treated as different LSIDs.

Versioning gives concept authors the ability to simultaneously issue a new
LSID to a concept which has changed, and provide a nice chain through
which the evolution of their concept might be elucidated.   The two
versions of the concept would have different LSIDs, and systems using
LSIDs would clearly differentiate between them.

If we do use the version ability of LSIDs, I think only the 'owner' of an
LSID should be able to create a new version of it.

And you're right, there are some issues that need resolving and you
outline them well below

a.  When is a concept a totally new concept, deserving a new GUID?
b.  When is a concept a version of an exisiting concept?
c.  When can you change a concept and not even give it a new version?

We talked a bit about these things in Edinburgh, but haven't set about
coming to an agreement on them.

Dave


>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seek-taxon mailing list
> seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-taxon
>
>