[Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects

[Weitzman, Anna]

 Hi Chris and Rich,
 
While I do agree with Chris, I also agree with Rich that what this means is that we need to be able to capture more than one taxon concept in a single work.  A reference to someone else's concept is not the same 'usage instance'.  However, that is not going to be practical to tease out in most cases when we are doing this markup mechanically / programmatically (except in those rare instances where the author of the work clarifies by differentiating between Aus bus L. 1767 and Aus bus sensu Klotsch 1824).  Those clarifications are going to come when/if a subject matter expert is working on something and takes the time to add those bits of information--some of which are a matter of interpretation and some of which are clearly stated in the work.  What we need to do is to make sure that in the larger 'taxonomic workspace' those things can be captured, identified and correctly linked to the correct 'usage instance', the correct taxon concept, etc.
 
Cheers,
Anna
 
Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
Informatics Branch Chief, ITO
Informatics, Botany and Biodiversity Research
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
 
202.633.0846
weitzman at si.edu

________________________________

From: zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org on behalf of Richard Pyle
Sent: Tue 06-Mar-07 6:00 PM
To: 'Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN)'
Subject: RE: [Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects



Hi Chris,

> Up to a point, probably; the only nagging thought I have here
> is that in some works the author will be discussing /
> interpreting previous usages of a name, so part of the text
> will refer to the current author's usage instance, whilst the
> name elsewhere in the text will refer to his interpretation
> (or repetition) of someone else's usage instance. 

Right -- but at that point you're talking about cross-referencing taxonomic
concepts, aren't you?  Certainly there needs to be a data structure to
accommodate this sort of information (what I believe is called
"RelationshipAssertions" in TCS).  But I see this as more concept-based
information, than name based information.  Certainly it involves names (in
the sense of strings of text that represent names), and there needs to be a
mechanism for capturing the intended references to those name-strings.
So...I'm not sure what the best answer is.

> This may
> be getting into such obscure detail that we can never hope to
> parse out and interpret the context, but it does become
> fairly apparent in catalogues, for example, where one might
> wish to resolve the 'same' name in different directions,
> depending on which publication is being cited as its origin. 
> I guess that in all cases we have to look at cost/benefit of
> applying a GUID (or a placeholder for one). 

Yes -- none of this stuff is written in stone (yet...).  I guess we need to
get a clearer sense for where nomenclature ends, and taxon concept
information begins (if there is even a way to disambiguate the two).  And
yes, at some point it's important to capture the core elements in a
structured way, punting the subtleties into a "text-blob" sort of comment or
annotation.  But at the same time, I understand your point about the need to
parse "sub-usages" (for lack of a better term) within the context of a
single publication.

I just wish my head didn't hurt so much whenever I try to wrap it around
these sorts of discussions.... :-)

Aloha,
Rich



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
Zoobank-list mailing list
Zoobank-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.