[SEEK-Taxon] relationship types

[Nico Franz]

Hi all:

    thinking about our upcoming call, I'm wondering: can we capture "status 
assignments" well enough? For names ("translated" by the exchange schema 
into not-so-well defined concepts), I'm assuming the way to do it is by 
using the relationship assertions; specifically the options from the 
nomenclatural relationships list. So then if someone asserts that concept A 
is a synonym of concept B, it is clear which concept that someone accepts 
(B) and rejects (A). Is it possible though for an authority to simply 
accept or reject a name/poorly defined concept without having to cite 
another one?

    In the case of well defined concepts, I couldn't locate any structure 
saying "author X accepts concept A". I can think of a number of reasons why 
such "taking of a position" might be useful (e.g. assume an authoritative 
position without having to author concepts or relationships; mostly 
accepting previous concepts and previous relationships with only slight 
modifications, crediting or discrediting a previous effort, etc.).

    In recent discussions at KU we thought that even though the possibility 
of dividing every authoritative view into its smallest separate atomic 
units is necessary for data management and efficient exchange, the real 
justification for using e.g. GUIDs will come from the subsequent and 
dynamic reconnecting and reusing of these units in various (non-/taxonomic) 
contexts. That's at least how it seems to work with electronic publications 
labeled through DOI. It's all about the reusing...

    It's probably less critical to know that everyone thinks something 
slightly different about nature. We already sort of know that anyway. No 
two persons' notions of "table" are identical either - down to the last 
atom. That's a degree of vagueness we live with happily, most of the time. 
What's critical, and will make up the value of concepts + GUIDs, is 
fostering a culture in which taxonomic agreement can be expressed and 
reconfirmed over time and across authors. Status assignments could turn out 
to be very important in this context, even if they introduce more vagueness 
than the best imaginable concept practice.

    In fact status assignments could build somewhat of a bridge between 
names and concepts. Each individual revision will necessary "end" at some 
point up or down the tree, and run into the "problem" of not wanting to 
author concepts at still higher or still lower levels. Status assignments 
cut specify those "cut-off" points where an author refers to a previous 
concept for further detail. That's still superior to just citing a name, or 
facing the "bubble up & down" effects and having to author or relate 
concepts at levels beyond one's expertise.

    I'm not trying to throw bombs here but would like us to think about 
this (look e.g. at VegBank) and maybe be prepared to talk about status 
assignments on Thursday or for TDWG in New Zealand.

Cheers,

Nico

Nico M. Franz
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
735 State Street, Suite 300
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Phone: (805) 966-1677; Fax: (805) 892-2510; E-mail: franz at nceas.ucsb.edu
Website: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~franz/



At 02:03 PM 9/17/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>we have done a bit more work on classifying the relationships
>
>I would guess that it is probably only the set based (Berlin - based) 
>relationships and the parent-child (hierarchy) relationships that it makes 
>sense to consider in processing terms. Maybe you could chain name-based 
>relationships together transitively - but the implications and 
>interpretations are complex (and might leasily lead to some infinite 
>loops... A is a synonym of B is a synonym of C is a synonym of D is a 
>synonym of A..........).
>
>see the notes at the bottom of the table
>
>trevor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20040928/2036f84e/attachment.htm