[Taxacom] globalnames?

[David Remsen (GBIF)]

Peter,

It is exactly the scope and intention of what we are working on at GBIF.

David






On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Peter DeVries wrote:

>> As far as I can tell (?) no such resource exists
> (the 'database mentality' not lending itself to that approach?).
> It is in development, probably as part of globalnames.
>
> See
>
> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.xhtml
>
>
> and
>
> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz.xhtml
>
> <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/iuCXz.xhtml>- Pete
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Paul van Rijckevorsel
> <dipteryx at freeler.nl>wrote:
>
>> From: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:10 PM
>>> These lists are probably the sorts of taxonomic products that  
>>> unsettle
>>> me the most.  They are lists of names purporting to be lists of
>>> unambiguous and inviolate species entities/concepts but in most
>>> cases there is no way to connect one with the other, other than to
>>> assume they are following the prevailing taxonomic wisdom. Which
>>> of course might change next week.
>>>
>>> In our case these lists are part of legislation and thus inherit  
>>> power
>>> far greater than the science and semantics behind them.
>>>
>>> It is all a bit of a worry...
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if the names in question were linked online to a
>>> documented taxonomy circumscribing the intended concept/entity,
>>> which was in turn connected to a populated disambiguator, all
>>> would be sweet and peace and harmony would rule the earth.  :)
>>
>> ***
>> I will refer to what I wrote on 22 September:
>>
>> " What the non-taxonomist will need (even if he does not realize it)
>>  is the taxonomic information indicated by the name (as used in that
>>  particular case). In what sense is the name used: how is the taxon
>>  circumscribed? That is the information that routinely should be
>>  included. In the case of a name with a lively history this is likely
>>  to be vital (possibly literally), and its absence may be truly
>>  disastrous.
>>
>>  There is a lot of education to be done in this respect. The
>>  non-taxonomist is very unlikely to realize that four 'text strings',
>>  each with the same botanical name but including a different
>>  (lengthy) author citation are one-and-the-same-thing, while the
>>  same botanical name "in the sense of the FNA" and "in the sense
>>  of the Flora Europaea" may be vitally different. "
>>
>> As to the "linked online to a documented taxonomy circumscribing
>> the intended concept/entity, which was in turn connected to a
>> populated disambiguator", if this means an online resource which
>> disambiguates names by circumscription, then that would be
>> a good idea. As far as I can tell (?) no such resource exists
>> (the 'database mentality' not lending itself to that approach?).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
>> of these
>> methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
>> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/ 
> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>