123 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
123 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1173170740" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="GUIDsForZoologicalNames"}%
|
|
See also UsageInstanceProposal.
|
|
|
|
_The following is was cut directly from Rich Pyle's message on mailing list._
|
|
|
|
There is going to be an issue regarding how GUIDs (e.g., LSIDs) are assigned
|
|
to taxon names to botanical vs. zoological names. This comes down to the
|
|
fundamental difference in how zoologists and botanists think of a "name" (or
|
|
as we informatics nerds would say, a "name object" -- the thing to which a
|
|
GUID is attached and/or represents). Consider these hypothetical names:
|
|
|
|
_Aus_ L.
|
|
_Xus_ Jones
|
|
_Aus bus_ Smith
|
|
_Xus bus_ (Smith)
|
|
|
|
The first clue to the differences between zoological and botanical practice
|
|
is that the last of these would be represented as "_Xus bus_ (Smith) Jones",
|
|
where Jones is credited as the first to have placed the species epithet
|
|
"bus" within the genus "Xus".
|
|
|
|
In our (zoological) realm, we would certainly think of the "original genus"
|
|
as an attribute of a species epithet (at the very least so that we know
|
|
whether to put parentheses around the author), but otherwise we don't track
|
|
combinations under ICZN (rules governing gender matching notwithstanding).
|
|
To a zoologist, the combination is an attribute of the particular usage
|
|
instance. For example, there may by five publications citing the species
|
|
epithet "bus" and placing it in the genus "Aus" (one of these being the
|
|
original description), and there may be five others placing "bus" within the
|
|
genus "Xus". While it may very well be that Jones was the first to create
|
|
this "Xus bus" combination, we in Zoology do not ascribe any special status
|
|
to that event -- that is, we do not regard it as a Code-governed
|
|
nomenclatural act.
|
|
|
|
Thus, from the Zoological perspective, there are three GUIDs (LSIDs) needed
|
|
to accommodate the four items above:
|
|
|
|
<verbatim>
|
|
LSID1: Aus L.
|
|
LSID2: Xus Jones
|
|
LSID3: bus Smith [original genus: LSID1]
|
|
</verbatim>
|
|
|
|
We would then keep track of combinations through name-usage instances. For
|
|
example, we might have ten records in out "usage instances" database to
|
|
represent the five published citations of "Aus bus" and the five published
|
|
citations of "Xus bus". These would all be thought of as usage intances of
|
|
"bus" (LSID3), and an attribute each usage instance would be which genus
|
|
combination it was placed with (five would point to LSID1 as the parent
|
|
genus, and the other five would point to LSID2 as the parent genus). E.g.:
|
|
|
|
<verbatim>
|
|
Usage# NameID ParentID
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
1 LSID3 LSID1
|
|
2 LSID3 LSID1
|
|
3 LSID3 LSID1
|
|
4 LSID3 LSID1
|
|
5 LSID3 LSID1
|
|
6 LSID3 LSID2
|
|
7 LSID3 LSID2
|
|
8 LSID3 LSID2
|
|
9 LSID3 LSID2
|
|
10 LSID3 LSID2
|
|
</verbatim>
|
|
|
|
From the botanical perspective, however, each combination is treated as a
|
|
distinct (code-governed) "name" (Name-object). Thus, for botanists, there
|
|
would be four GUIDs, instead of three:
|
|
|
|
<verbatim>
|
|
LSID1: Aus L.
|
|
LSID2: Xus Jones
|
|
LSID3: Aus bus Smith
|
|
LSID4: Xus bus (Smith) Jones [basionym: LSID3]
|
|
</verbatim>
|
|
|
|
For usage instance records, instead of having pointers to two GUIDs per
|
|
record (one for the species epithet, one for the genus) there would simply
|
|
be a pointer to the combination as used. E.g.:
|
|
|
|
<verbatim>
|
|
Usage# NameID
|
|
-------------------
|
|
1 LSID3
|
|
2 LSID3
|
|
3 LSID3
|
|
4 LSID3
|
|
5 LSID3
|
|
6 LSID4
|
|
7 LSID4
|
|
8 LSID4
|
|
9 LSID4
|
|
10 LSID4
|
|
</verbatim>
|
|
|
|
I'll make two observations about this fundamental difference between the
|
|
botanical and zoological approaches to "names" (name-objects):
|
|
|
|
1) It may be that this difference ends up being transparent, once we get
|
|
this stuff implemented. In other words, there may be no problem with
|
|
ZooBank assigning GUIDs by the zoological tradition, and IPNI/IF assigning
|
|
GUIDs by the botanical tradition -- as long as the informatics architecture,
|
|
standards, and protocols are done right, there should be little difficulty
|
|
aggregating botanical and zoological names data together. On the other
|
|
hand, I can't help but think it will ultimately be to everyone's advantage
|
|
to all be on the "same page" in terms of GUID issuance, so that there is no
|
|
question how a GUID under one code corresponds to a GUID under another (in
|
|
terms of what you do with the metadata attached to that GUID).
|
|
|
|
2) At first glance, the botanical approach might seem preferable because it
|
|
leads to a (seemingly) simpler way of tracking the relationship between
|
|
"names" and other data (like usages, specimens, etc.) However, I think there
|
|
is compelling reason from an information management perspective (outside of
|
|
personal biases of different taxonomic traditions) to treat "name objects"
|
|
as monomial units (ala zoological tradition), and then layer everything else
|
|
on top of usage instances (without the need to GUID-ify name-combination
|
|
units in-between these two layers). But I'll save the details of this
|
|
perspective for another discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Main.RogerHyam - 02 Mar 2007 |