[Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects

[Richard Pyle]

I agree completely!  And this is where initiatives like INOTAXA and uBio and
BHL need to figure out a protocol and structure for an intermediate step
between programmatically-scanned documents and "verified"
IPNI/IF/ZooBank-style records.  This would fall into "Level 2" of the EoL
model.  In the context of ZooBank, I see this realm of data entering as
"unverified" records (see:
http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/iczn/docs/ZooBank-GPP.pdf), and thus being
exposed to expert taxonomists as they encounter them, who then gradually add
the human side of "taxonomic intelligence" working hand-in-hand
(err...hand-in-GUID) with automated "taxonomic intelligence" services --
inching us ever closer to that idealistic data destination.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org 
> [mailto:zoobank-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Weitzman, Anna
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:18 PM
> To: Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN); Zoobank Discussion List (ICZN)
> Subject: RE: [Zoobank-list] RE: ZooBank Data Objects
> 
>  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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.