[SEEK-Taxon] Re: LC/TCS - How many schemas?

[Nico Franz]

Hi Roger:

   Expectedly, you received a range of answers to the "how many 
schemas?" question. I'll have a shot at the next one - scope. The idea 
behind the TCS is to make the scope wide, so wide that it can reasonably 
accommodate the needs of multiple individual interest groups who 
interact with these kinds of data (library services, nomenclators, 
authoritative checklists, on-line monographers, conservation scientists, 
community ecologists, niche modelers, etc.). The idea to encourage the 
use of concepts is rooted both in a vision of sustainable data 
management and integration (who contributed what?) and in the perception 
that the current system of nomenclature can "package" some but not all 
of taxonomy's unique processes and products (the problem case of 
many-to-many mappings of names to taxonomic ideas). There is a inherent 
problem of insufficient granularity of names that only concepts can solve.

   Once fully developed, the TCS will allow a new form of taxonomic 
practice (relationship assertions) and thereby produce more transparent 
ties among alternative classification systems as they (have) come out. 
Museum specimens can be linked to such data via identification. For 
those data providers who do not manage their holdings in a concept wrap 
(some call it burrito), there are "nominal concepts" and possibly 
"unauthored" connections among them.

   The above notion of scope is ambitious and not realizable without 
proper funding. We nevertheless think it's the right thing to fight for, 
now. Even with that wide scope in mind, Jessie and Robert have managed 
to represent many kinds of data (Apiaceae monograph, German mosses, 
ITIS, World mammals, Species2000, now Flora North America) in the TCS. 
So far as I can tell, some of  the more tricky Code-prescribed 
relationships among names can also be reasonably well represented in the 
TCS (see http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/TcsNameExamples). 
When a first LC-TCS version is ratified, we might still fall short with 
respect to some of the new ideas (concept relationships) and 
technologies (GUIDs). I am also not sure how far the SDD parts will be 
along (simple notes field) and how well we will fare in terms of 
modeling molecular/phylogenetic information. Those are some of the 
pragmatic cuts in scope for the moment.

   So in summary, I think a wide scope (model nearly everything 
nomenclatural AND taxonomic) is the TCS's ultimate goal. A viable first 
goal (when are we finished) is to be able to accommodate the 
nomenclatural/taxonomic needs of those who are up first in sharing their 
data via TCS.

Best,

Nico



Roger Hyam wrote:

> Hi everyone on the cc list!
>
> I have thought long and hard about this and followed the debate with 
> interest. There seem to be quite a few people who are very close to 
> agreement on most things.
>
> From the point of view of an implementor I have a rather simple and 
> possibly naive question:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> As regards nomenclature do we need to model everything (i.e. all 
> possible nomenclatural constructs) in the schema?
>
> If YES - When do we know we have finished designing it?
>
> If NO -  What can we leave out or relegate to a simple notes field?
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 4 variables in any software project
>
> 1) Scope - what does the thing do.
> 2) Resources - how many people, machines etc.
> 3) Timescale - when do you want it by.
> 4) Quality - does it do what it says in the scope correctly.
>
> In our case Resources are limited as not all experts can spend all 
> their time on it. Timescale should be urgent as the things we are 
> trying to record have a growing tendency to become extinct. Quality 
> should always be 100%. The only thing we can manage here (as is usual 
> in such projects) is Scope. Hence the above question.
>
> If we could take a decision as to whether we will model everything 
> then we can start working on how we know when we have finished or what 
> we will leave out.
>
> I hope you will excuse my rather blunt approach.
>
> Roger