| Line 1 was replaced by line 1 |
| - Reusing (or Citing) Concepts and GUIDS - Some Examples |
| + !!Reusing (or Citing) Concepts and GUIDS - Some Examples |
| Line 3 was replaced by line 3 |
| - NMF – VIII-03-2004 |
| + !NMF – VIII-03-2004 |
| Line 5 was replaced by line 5 |
| - The examples start off more or less where our discussion (facilitated through Aimee) ended, see http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=What%20Gets%20a%20Guid. The idea is to illustrate various scenarios where concepts and GUIDs might be reused. I’m also adding in some things about how to define the meanings of concepts. I hope there’s no need to stress the provisional character of these scenarios. |
| + The examples start off more or less where our discussion (facilitated through Aimee) ended, see [http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=What%20Gets%20a%20Guid] __The idea is to illustrate various scenarios where concepts and GUIDs might be reused. I’m also adding in some things about how to define the meanings of concepts.__ I hope there’s no need to stress the provisional character of these scenarios. |
| Line 7 was replaced by line 7 |
| - __Example 1__ |
| + !!__Example 1 - no concept reuse [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample1.jpg]__ |
| Line 9 was replaced by line 9 |
| - This is perhaps the cleanest example, and useful to introduce some terminology. What you see above are two succeeding classification systems for the walnut family Juglandaceae: one according to Manning (1978), and the other according to Stone (2001). For example, there is a Juglans sec. Manning (1978), or a Carya ovata sec. Stone (1997). Each author has his own network of vertical parent/child relationships among the internally accepted concepts. The rejected concepts (e.g. Hicoria is a rejected synonym for Carya, as both Manning and Stone mention) are not shown here, but could be pasted in as less precisely (shallowly) defined concepts, placed next to each corresponding accepted concept. |
| + This is perhaps the cleanest example, and useful to introduce some terminology. What you see above are two succeeding classification systems for the walnut family Juglandaceae: one according to Manning (1978), and the other according to Stone (1997). For example, there is a Juglans sec. Manning (1978), or a Carya ovata sec. Stone (1997). Each author has his own network of vertical parent/child relationships among the internally accepted concepts. The rejected concepts (e.g. Hicoria is a rejected synonym for Carya, as both Manning and Stone mention) are not shown here, but could be pasted in as less precisely (shallowly) defined concepts, placed next to each corresponding accepted concept. |
| Line 13 was replaced by line 13 |
| - So, to sum up, there are three possible sorts of relationships here: (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone [not shown] → Carya sec. Stone [shown]); (2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and (3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). I would strongly suggest that we do not worry now about vertical or lateral relationships involving concepts that an author rejects, because often their referential extensions are too ambiguous (see my paper). |
| + So, to sum up, there are __three possible sorts of relationships__ here: |
| Line 15 was replaced by line 15 |
| - So far so good, I hope. If we (i.e. the taxonomists) used this approach in the future, all the time, then concept inflation would be very high. Any kind of understanding across classifications would be localized in the lateral concept relationships. I think we can do better than that. |
| + __(1)__ internally, __rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts__ (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone (not shown) → Carya sec. Stone (shown)); |
| Line 17 was replaced by line 17 |
| - __Example 2__ |
| + __(2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts__ (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and |
| At line 18 added 1 line. |
| + __(3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts__ (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). |
| Line 20 was replaced by line 21 |
| - This is still a fairly simple but different case. Let’s assume Stone (1997) was aware of the concept approach, and wanted to be both comprehensive and conservative in his classification. [You could easily imagine Manning and Stone to instead represent two future versions of ITIS, where ITIS’ taxonomic experts were “schooled” in the concept approach.] |
| + I would strongly suggest that we do not worry now about vertical or lateral relationships involving concepts that an author rejects, because often their referential extensions are too ambiguous (see my paper). |
| At line 21 added 7 lines. |
| + So far so good, I hope. __If we (i.e. the taxonomists) used this approach in the future, all the time, then concept inflation would be very high. Any kind of understanding across classifications would be localized in the lateral concept relationships.__ I think we can do better than that. |
| + |
| + !!__Example 2 - low-level reuse [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample2.jpg]__ |
| + |
| + |
| + This is still a fairly simple but different case. Let’s assume Stone (1997) was aware of the concept approach, and wanted to be both comprehensive and conservative in his classification. (You could easily imagine Manning and Stone to instead represent two future versions of ITIS, where ITIS’ taxonomic experts were “schooled” in the concept approach.) |
| + |
| Line 24 was replaced by line 32 |
| - What’s happened here is that Stone “borrowed” expertise from Manning. No individual taxonomist can know everything once the groups reach a certain size. The deliberate “borrowing” of expertise can and must happen all the time. A knowledgeable author should be allowed (as an option) in the future to make her own calls about borrowing and claiming, depending on her expertise and stated intentions to contribute to our taxonomic knowledge. Claiming is easier and cleaner but leads to more inflation and possibly less mutual understanding than borrowing. A conservative taxonomist will claim only if something is really (deeply) new, and borrow most everything else. This minimizes inflation. |
| + What’s happened here is that Stone “borrowed” expertise from Manning. No individual taxonomist can know everything once the groups reach a certain size. The deliberate “borrowing” of expertise can and must happen all the time. __A knowledgeable author should be allowed (as an option) in the future to make her own calls about borrowing and claiming, depending on her expertise and stated intentions to contribute to our taxonomic knowledge. Claiming is easier and cleaner but leads to more inflation and possibly less mutual understanding than borrowing. A conservative taxonomist will claim only if something is really (deeply) new, and borrow most everything else. This minimizes inflation.__ |
| Removed line 26 |
| - I thought it might be a fundamental issue whether (and how) we allow such “composite” classifications of cited and authored concepts to exist in our database, and how to implement this in a schema. |
| Line 28 was replaced by line 35 |
| - __Example 3__ |
| + I thought it might be a fundamental issue whether (and how) we allow such “composite” classifications of cited and authored concepts to exist in our database, and how to implement this in a schema. |
| At line 29 added 1 line. |
| + !!__Example 3 - reshuffling, parents [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample3.jpg]__ |
| Line 31 was replaced by line 39 |
| - Ok, I stuffed a number of scenarios into this example. What is going on? First of all, Stone (1997) was interested mostly in a genus-level revision. Let’s say he examined and accepted as “close enough” all species concepts authored by Manning in 1978. As you see, all of Stone’s “deferred” species concepts have Manning’s 10x -type GUIDs. Zero inflation at this level. So far so good. |
| + Ok, I stuffed a number of scenarios into this example. What is going on? First of all, Stone (1997) was interested mostly in a genus-level revision. Let’s say he examined and accepted as “close enough” all species concepts authored by Manning in 1978. As you see, all of Stone’s “deferred” species concepts have Manning’s 10x -type GUIDs. __Zero inflation at this level.__ So far so good. |
| Line 37 was replaced by line 45 |
| - __Example 4__ |
| + !!__Example 4 - ost./int. separation [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4a.jpg]__ |
| Line 41 was replaced by line 49 |
| - Question: is there a sense in which Stone could still - should he so desire (it’s an option, not a must) - consider Juglandaceae sec. Manning (1978) to be the parent of Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997)? |
| + __Question:__ is there a sense in which Stone could still - should he so desire (it’s an option, not a must) - consider Juglandaceae sec. Manning (1978) to be the parent of Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997)? |
| Line 43 was replaced by line 51 |
| - Answer: ostensively - no! Manning never looked at Cyclocarya, and in any case failed to connect it as a child to his concept of Juglandaceae. But: intensionally, yes, it’s at least possible! What if Manning’s property-based definition of Juglandaceae was so precise and accurate that it clearly applies to the properties observed in Cyclocarya? Based on these properties, one can only conclude that Manning - whatever else he might have thought - would have had to identify Cyclocarya as a member of the walnut family. |
| + __Answer: ostensively - no!__ Manning never looked at Cyclocarya, and in any case failed to connect it as a child to his concept of Juglandaceae. __But: intensionally, yes, it’s at least possible!__ What if Manning’s property-based definition of Juglandaceae was so precise and accurate that it clearly applies to the properties observed in Cyclocarya? Based on these properties, one can only conclude that Manning - whatever else he might have thought - would have had to identify Cyclocarya as a member of the walnut family. |
| Line 45 was replaced by line 53 |
| - I’m raising an important relation here, upon which much of our mutual understanding in taxonomy rests. The question is: had a previous expert speaker seen this entity X (which she actually never did), how would she have classified it, and why? Together with the issue of borrowing vs. claiming expertise, these kinds of judgments make up a lot of the referential continuity among classifications and uses of taxonomic names, as we humans (inductively) perceive it and rely on it in conversations and all non-taxonomic publications. |
| + I’m raising an important relation here, upon which much of our mutual understanding in taxonomy rests. The question is: __had a previous expert speaker seen this entity X (which she actually never did), how would she have classified it, and why?__ Together with the issue of borrowing vs. claiming expertise, these kinds of judgments make up a lot of the referential continuity among classifications and uses of taxonomic names, as we humans (inductively) perceive it and rely on it in conversations and all non-taxonomic publications. |
| Line 49 was replaced by line 57 |
| - __Example 6__ |
| + !!__Example 4, cont. [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4b.jpg]__ |
| Line 51 was replaced by line 59 |
| - What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy are supposed to indicate their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc. Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
| + What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy is supposed to indicate that their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. __Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc.__ Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
| Line 55 was replaced by line 63 |
| - What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them that would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspect to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concept when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible. Stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions. |
| + What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of __permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable.__ They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspects to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. __This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible - stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions.__ |
| Line 57 was replaced by line 65 |
| - I think something like the AtomicTaxa - concepts without the ostensive chains - might be introduced in the database schema to isolate those intensional meanings from the ostensive ones. I’m fairly sure that the TDWG TES need not have this now, but ultimately the (optional!) approach hinted at above may offer more services to experts than the existing schemas. At least I hope it’s worth thinking about that. |
| + I think something like the __AtomicTaxa__ (which might be renamed as __IntensionalConcepts__) - concepts without the ostensive chains (also without vouchers) - might be introduced in the database schema to __isolate those intensional meanings from the ostensive ones.__ I’m fairly sure that the TDWG TES need not have this now, but ultimately the (optional!) approach hinted at above may offer more services to experts than the existing schemas. At least I hope it’s worth thinking about that. |
