[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?
Paul Kirk
p.kirk at cabi.org
Wed Mar 2 07:31:14 PST 2005
Walter,
My point was that most of the 'concepts' we might readily capture using TCS from, for example 400,000 herbarium labels from herb. IMI, will result in 400,000 concepts. A similar exercise might be carried out on fungi in herb. B but then I am still 'afraid' that however we analyse these two datasets we will be unable to resolve much beyond name matching and specimen (duplicates) matching, which says little about the taxa represented by the specimens themselves, and can be done without TCS.
Was the instability apparent from your analyses determined entirely 'mechanically', without redetermination of specimens or other taxonomic input?
A very extensively adopted methodology in producing national checklists is to account for only those names used in a national context (previous checklists, national flora/fauna/mycota) and ignore other names which might be universally recognized synonyms of the names accepted in the checklist. Now consider a checklist for each of two countries which use the same methodology but for a species common to both checklists use a different subset of those universally recognized synonyms. Will not all implementations of the TCS deduce that different species concepts are in use in the two checklists when, infact, there is but one species represented in both checklists?
Regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Berendsohn, Walter G.
To: Kennedy, Jessie; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE; nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp; dhobern at gbif.org; franz at nceas.ucsb.edu; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz; ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at cabi.org; bti at dsmz.de; garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert; C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk; yjong at science.uva.nl; weitzman at si.edu; rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov; sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org; S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org; ict.staff at gbif.org; roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu; gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net; gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
Sent: 02/03/05 12:35
Subject: RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?
Hello Jessie,
yes and no. With a name without the nomenclatural details. The act of
identifying a specimen is of course always the process of assigning the
specimen to a taxon, i.e. a concept. However, ABCD deals with existing
data sources, where this is rarely explicitly stated. If so, it is
currently handled as part of the event of making the identification (as
identification reference, or, in fact, as the identifying person [see
Paul's sec. reference issue]), simply because in specimens the
(biological) taxon is not the only outcome of an identification.
Paul: I disagree strongly with your 99.99-figure. For the German Flora
we do have a remarcable instability of concepts among recent treatments
in use even by the same community, worse if we look at, e.g., ecological
trait databases as opposed to red-list data. It goes close to 50% if
e.g. Flora Europaea is taken in (although I agree that most of these
different circumscriptions are irrelevant for the wider user community
because they do not have any but taxonomic data attached to them).
Cheers
Walter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kennedy, Jessie [mailto:J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: Berendsohn, Walter G.; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE;
> nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp; dhobern at gbif.org;
> franz at nceas.ucsb.edu; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz;
> ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at CABI.ORG;
> bti at dsmz.de; garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert;
> C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk; yjong at science.uva.nl; weitzman at si.edu;
> rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov;
> sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org;
> S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org;
> ict.staff at gbif.org; roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu;
> gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net; gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
> Subject: RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?
>
>
> Hi Walter
>
> Just for clarification...
> do you mean you want to identify something with a name as per
> LC rather than the name of a concept as per TCS? I thought we
> had strong agreement in Christchurch that it was menaingless
> to identify something to a name and it would be more
> appropriate to be identified to a concept (name) - but this
> doens't mean you have to include the definition of the
> concept - only enough to uniquely identify the concept which
> of course the scientific name doesn't do, as we all know. A
> name as per LC has no definition except at at a push the type
> specimen.
>
> thanks,
>
> Jessie
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Berendsohn, Walter G. [mailto:w.berendsohn at bgbm.org]
> >Sent: 02 March 2005 07:56
> >To: Kennedy, Jessie; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE; nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp;
> >dhobern at gbif.org; franz at nceas.ucsb.edu;
> CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz;
> >ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at CABI.ORG; bti at dsmz.de;
> >garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert; C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk;
> yjong at science.uva.nl;
> >weitzman at si.edu; rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov;
> >sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org;
> >S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org; ict.staff at gbif.org;
> >roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu;
> gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net;
> >gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
> >Subject: LC/TCS - How many schemas?
> >
> >
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I think that we have to achieve common data definitions on the data
> >element level and for a number of types as well. Different
> purposes may
> >need different schemas, as Jerry has indicated. However, different
> >needs as to, for example, integrity can also be covered by
> extensions
> >to common types, as Gregor has demonstrated for SDD and UBIF.
> >
> >I still think that we have at least three levels of needed
> >standardisation: the full taxonomic concept "world" (excluding the
> >geographical and descriptive data used to circumscribe the
> taxon), the
> >full "nomenclator world" as defined by the codes, including
> >_nomenclatural_ relationships to other names and assertions as to
> >adherence to the rules of nomenclature, and the normal murky name as
> >used by many databases out there, where no further definition of
> >concept etc. is given. I would like to have this latter component
> >somewhat isolated, e.g. as a type, from the rest, because I
> would like
> >to plug it
> >into ABCD (as the result of an identification).
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Walter
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 AM
> >> To: Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability
> >> Subject: RE: [SEEK-Taxon] RE: GBIF and TCS-LC for data exchange
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> This message was sent to: "Kennedy, Jessie"
> >> <J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk>, "G. Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>,
> >> "Nozomi Ytow" <nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp>,
> >> <dhobern at gbif.org>, <franz at nceas.ucsb.edu>,
> >> <CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz>, <ghw at anbg.gov.au>,
> >> <lblaine at atcc.org>, <p.kirk at CABI.ORG>, <bti at dsmz.de>,
> >> <garrity at msu.edu>, "Kukla, Robert" <R.Kukla at napier.ac.uk>,
> >> <C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk>, <yjong at science.uva.nl>,
> >> <weitzman at si.edu>, <rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
> >> <cwilson at usgs.gov>, <sblum at CalAcademy.org>,
> >> <seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org>, <S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org>,
> >> <sci.staff at gbif.org>, <ict.staff at gbif.org>,
> >> <roger at hyam.net>, "Matt Jones" <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu>,
> >> "Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability "
> >> <gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net>, "Subcommittee for Electonic
> >> Catalogue of Names of Known Organisms"
> >> <gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net> Remember that the messages
> >> sent to the list(s) go to all recipients.
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> > In response to Donald's document - we've annotated the
> >document (an
> >> > email wiki ;-) ) - Please find attached our comments using
> >> tracking in
> >> > Word.
> >>
> >> To continue the email wiki, I have attached the same document with
> >> my own comments appended (in blue). The sooner others jump in on
> >> this, the more colors they'll have to choose from using Word's
> >> "Track Changes" feature -- so better hurry!
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> Aloha,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20050302/e7baa766/attachment.htm
More information about the Seek-taxon
mailing list