| Line 5 was replaced by lines 5-57 |
| - Possible collaboration point is functional attribute database to |
| + !Misc Thoughts/Facts |
| + * How associate growing body of functional/trait attributes with taxonomic information? |
| + ** Associate with GUIDs, names, other concept attributes? or associate dynamically? |
| + ** __Possible collaboration point: reasoning over functional attribute database__ |
| + * Semantic mediator will call TOS (Taxonomic Object Service) |
| + * For a more automated workflow approach - maybe associate taxonType[] as output port for dataset actor and input port for analysis actor |
| + * Weighted output from TCS is an issue—how use in Kepler? |
| + * Current TOS demo/SOAP service is not working because it is being upgraded. This should be up again soon. Even simple service will help identify issues to be addressed. |
| + * Split or lump to common resolution |
| + ** must define resolutions |
| + ** rank vs set operations |
| + ** original concepts vs third party relationship assertions |
| + * __Is the meeting in Estes Park necessary?__ |
| + |
| + !SMS focusing on following scenario: |
| + SMS WILL construct for a given (number of) dataset(s) the best set of information (limited/query concepts; as “complete a filled-in concept as possible”)) to feed to the TCS (binomial, year, location, e.g.)—and a specification of the grain to which you want these resolved (default to finest grain?). TCS then returns (a potentially integrated or presentation of possible integration options) of these two lists of concepts. Aimee says that Taxon is aware of this, but hasn't gotten to it yet, as it is the hardest/most complex function (and builds on the others). |
| + |
| + Use Case: |
| + * Scientist brings in 2 datasets |
| + * Resolve names for each li* st |
| + * Can this data be integrated? yes/no |
| + ** Need Integrate function (This is already on the task list for Taxon) |
| + *** integrate(list1, list2, criteria) |
| + ** Need Compatible method: |
| + *** compatible(concept1, concept2, criteria) |
| + *** compatible(list1, list2, criteria) |
| + |
| + !Relation with EML Taxonomic coverage |
| + * how capture results, esp if these required human intervention |
| + * is TCS resolution going to be associated with EML as semantic annotation or resolve dynamically? |
| + ** Could bind resolution if done by original data collector/author |
| + ** Third party resolution results could improve over time until TOS cache is somewhat stable. |
| + ** Who is responsible for the association if not maintained in EML? |
| + |
| + !Additions/Modifications to TOS: |
| + * Additional input for findConcepts: |
| + ** ancillary data to help resolve concept (i.e. geographic, functional, temporal data about dataset) |
| + ** level of desired resolution (could be part of algorithm) |
| + * Automatically resolve a list of names with different resolutions/ranks to a __rescaled__ list of concepts (lump to reconcile with other list, criteria) |
| + ** step 1: names to concepts (with user interaction?) |
| + *** how is this determined when taxonomists make judgements based on taxonomic author/provider? |
| + ** step 2: concept to parent |
| + *** third party relationships or originally defined concept relationships |
| + * Compatible(concept1, concept2, criteria) - someone needs to define criteria for analysis. |
| + * List of names |
| + ** are these most recent/best names |
| + ** what are ambiguities |
| + ** need for human intervention to resolve |
| + ** which GUID associated for co-referencing with other data. |
| + |
| + !SMS tasks: |
| + * SMS define criteria/ontology for ancillary taxonomic information |
| + ** Taxon redefine API arguments based on above |
