[Zoobank-list] Re: GBIF GUID Workshop Report

[Yde de Jong]

Dear Wolfgang,

Thanks for your input.

I think the set up of ZooBank will especially be important to provide 
a relevant electronic background to allow future cyber-taxonomy 
developments, including for instance the on-line submission of new 
names and web-based monographic working. Surpassing the paper labour 
will much speed up our taxonomic work (of a decreasing number of 
taxonomists) and give a direct access (also to third world 
taxonomists) to names, references and other details (like species 
descriptions). Beside I expect that after the initial efforts our 
work will much be eased because of the required standardisation and 
streamlining.

ZooBank's potential role as nomenclator to assign GUIDs for wider 
cross-linking is just one aspect. I agree that some persistent 
problems exist, one of them (indeed) being the different botanical 
and zoological perspectives on taxonomic names and concepts. In 
general the botanists view is more oriented to taxonomic concepts, 
while zoologists are closer to the nominal basis of species names. 
Both views have their strengths and weaknesses. The explicit 
bookkeeping of all proposed combinations (through time) as done by 
botanists is missing in zoology. However, as said zoologists have a 
better grip on their nominal basis and less 'swim in a sea of 
concepts' as botanist usually do.

Personally I think that for semantic web applications the zoological 
nomenclatural and taxonomic state and method is not that bad, in some 
respect maybe even favourable compared to botanists; except for the 
species numbers. However, we should prevent that non-zoologists 
(botanists, mycologists, etc.) will define a new 'universal' standard 
for the application of GUIDs optimal for their own conditions, but 
sub-optimal or worse from a zoological point of view. Therefore I 
fully support the call of Richard and Simon not to stand aside and 
(pro-)actively participate in this process.

I agree it could be a good idea to split the responsibilities, 
ZooBank taking care of the nomenclature and other resources (CoL, 
ITIS, FaEu, ZooRec, FishBase, etc.) taking care of the taxonomic 
concepts.

Kind regards,

Yde de Jong

Zoological Museum Amsterdam


----- Original Message -----

>Dear Richard,
>thanks for your detailed answer!
>
>>From my "little people's" perspective it's a bit difficult to make 
>>out: is the future role of ZooBank alraedy clear enough? - at least 
>>to an extent that we can see it's potential contribution in the 
>>mechanism of assigning GUIDs?
>GUIDs are needed for the exchange of biodiversity data, but ZooBank 
>will be limited to the "realm of nomenclature" and will not issue 
>something like approved lists of valid names (taxonomic concepts), 
>right?
>So, don't we need more than ZooBank to assist in the issuance of 
>GUIDs? Even something like "one master list" of valid names?
>
>Actually, the ZooRec does record more than the "realm of 
>nomenclature" as it includes subjective synonyms, changes in generic 
>combinations, up- and downgradings, etc. So, isn't the good old 
>traditional Zoological Record equally indispensable for the issuance 
>of GUIDs?
>
>Yet, the Zoological Record too doesn't provide authoritative "master 
>lists" of valid names which could provide a sound basis for GUIDs. 
>Currently, such lists are only available for certain taxa compiled 
>by initiatives like FishBase, the EMBL reptile database, Frost's 
>amphibian database, etc. etc.
>These three together:
>- ZooBank (providing the guarantee for Code-compliant names)
>- ZooRec (keeping us updated in both the nomenclatural AND taxonomic realms)
>- Expert teams of taxomomists (integrating nomenclature and 
>taxonomic concepts into "one standard list for all")
>would seem to me the basis needed in the mechanism to assign GUIDs.
>
>... well, maybe just a "little people's" perspective...
>
>Best wishes,
>Wolfgang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20060206/b584e2b9/attachment.html