[Tcs-lc] Taxonomic order anyone?

[Roger Hyam]

OK Everyone - thanks for your feedback - looks like just about no one 
thinks TCS should be able to do taxonomic order (apart from me maybe) - 
which neatly solves that technical problem and clarifies my ideas on 
what the TCS should do.

I am still after instance documents of version TCS 0.95 if anyone has 
marked any up yet. Just half a dozen taxa would be fine.

Thanks for your time on this,

Roger


Richard Pyle wrote:

>  
>
>>I see no way of doing taxonomic order in the current TCS.
>>    
>>
>
>If by "order" you mean the non-alphabetical (e.g., pseudo-"phylogenetic")
>sequencing of names, then I think this information is not worth capturing in
>the TCS schema.  There may be some inference of phylogenetic affiliations of
>concepts (sort of) in that kind of information -- but not really.  I think
>we should stay strictly with the hierarchical stuff and set-relationships.
>
>  
>
>>I see no way of doing it. Anyone got any ideas?
>>    
>>
>
>How does capturing this information contribute to concept circumscriptions
>and their exchange?
>
>  
>
>>Providing a list of taxa in a herbarium or other collection
>>in the order they are arrange (any one a curator?)
>>    
>>
>
>That's not the business of TCS.  If someone else wants to build an extension
>to TCS for this sort of thing, that's fine.  But I don't see it as a core
>function.
>
>  
>
>>Providing a representation of a monograph as published.
>>    
>>
>
>Again, not the business of TCS.  This is something that the taXMLit folks
>should worry about.  Ideally, they could use TCS instances for the concepts,
>but then sequence them and/or anchor them to well-defined microreferences
>(including order/sequence information).
>
>  
>
>>Providing the layout of a checklist like a field guide.
>>    
>>
>
>If associations can be made in a taxonomic/concept way (e.g.,
>"superspecies"), then great -- but beyond that, I think there need not be
>any encoding of order  among members within a specific set.
>
>  
>
>>just about any other application you can think of other
>>than a web search interface.
>>Am I missing something here? Is there a way of doing it?
>>    
>>
>
>I think we should focus on exchanging concept-objects and name-objects, and
>stay away from the business of order/sort/sequence of those objects within a
>set.
>
>I couldn't find the original message where (Roger?) sent this:
>
>  
>
>>>I am not suggesting we actually do these things with TCS but it should
>>>be able to do the list bit of each. Suppose we want to supply a list of
>>>birds of the British isles for use in a survey and we want to put them
>>>in the same order as in the main field guide. Are you saying TCS should
>>>not be able to do it? I would imagine that other schemas will supply
>>>descriptive and other detail but surely TCS should be doing the "These
>>>taxa in this order and this is what they are called" part.
>>>      
>>>
>
>..but my answer is "Yes -- I am saying that TCS should not be able to encode
>any sort of Concept order/sort/sequence for a list of concepts."  This
>should be the job of an extension to TCS, if enough people think it is
>useful.
>
>I also agree with all of Gregor's points, except:
>
>  
>
>>However, if you want to express sequence I believe it is
>>sufficient to agree
>>that the order of elements in the instance document must be
>>preserved and is semantic.
>>    
>>
>
>For the reasons Gregor follows this statement with, I think we should simply
>not even "go there".
>
>Roger followed up with:
>
>  
>
>>I am not talking about reproducing the field guide here but
>>about reproducing the classification presented in the field
>>guide.
>>    
>>
>
>But when you really look at it carefully, order/sequence/sort is not part of
>the classification.  I know that many monographers reproduce lists of names
>clustered in some sort of non-alphabetical order in a feeble attempt to
>convey some sort of phylogenetic information, but I don't think it's the
>kind of infromation that TCS should try to capture in any way. It's neither
>a concept circumscription issue, nor a name issue.
>
>  
>
>>Your recording sheet for an area survey should be in the
>>same order as your field guide. It may not contain as many
>>taxa because your field guide may cover a larger region it
>>would just contain the names you can tick but it should be
>>in the correct order. This is the kind of thing people like
>>ITIS in North America or NBN in the UK or even Species 2000
>>might like to do in the future.
>>    
>>
>
>What sort of information, exactly, does the non-alphabetical sort order
>encode or represent? If you're talking about being able to produce a
>document that presents names in a specific order other than alphabetical,
>then that's outside of TCS, in my opinion.
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tcs-lc mailing list
>Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>
>  
>

-- 

==============================================
 Roger Hyam
----------------------------------------------
 Biodiversity Informatics
 Independent Web Development 
----------------------------------------------
 http://www.hyam.net  roger at hyam.net
----------------------------------------------
 2 Janefield Rise, Lauder, TD2 6SP, UK.
 T: +44 (0)1578 722782 M: +44 (0)7890 341847
==============================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050330/ce507594/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: roger.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 275 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050330/ce507594/roger-0001.vcf