[Taxacom] Wikidata and Wikispecies

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Tue Oct 27 02:52:13 CDT 2015


Hi Andy,

Not quite. In the example you give the taxon name is a simple string, whereas I'd ague it should be an item with its own properties. In the same way that for people Wikidata can first and last names as items, e..g.  https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272518  rather than strings.

Doing this will (a) avoid conflating names and taxa, and (b) make Wikidata a lot more attractive as a repository of nomenclatural facts, many of which are a good fit for Wikidata (dates, people, publications, specimens). It also means you could align Wikidata with the main repositories of nomenclature, such as ZooBank, ION, IPNI, etc.

I guess I think Wikidata has an opportunity to be genuinely useful to biologists if it spends a little time to sort out how it models taxa and names, otherwise it's an opportunity missed.

Regards

Rod

Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/Ox5hz3>

_____________________________
From: Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk<mailto:andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:53 p.m.
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikidata and Wikispecies
To: Roderic Page <roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk>>


On 25 October 2015 at 12:08, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
> From my perspective, leaving aside any sociology, Wikispecies’ biggest
> limitation was that it didn’t cleanly separate taxonomic names (factual
> statements about who published a name and where and when they did that) and
> taxonomic concepts (“taxa”, the things that most biologists talk about, such
> as a particular species).

On the contrary, I think it does.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25404 is a Wikidata item representing a
species (taxon). One property of that item is that it is known by the
taxon name (P225) "Cyanistes caeruleus", - which, further, was
authored (P405) by Lnnaeus (item Q1043) in the year (P574) 1758.

Or is that not what you meant?


Anyone wanting to know more, or to contribute, may do so at:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk


On 25 October 2015 at 12:08, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> From my perspective, leaving aside any sociology, Wikispecies’ biggest
> limitation was that it didn’t cleanly separate taxonomic names (factual
> statements about who published a name and where and when they did that) and
> taxonomic concepts (“taxa”, the things that most biologists talk about, such
> as a particular species).

On the contrary, I think it does.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25404 is a Wikidata item representing a
species (taxon). One property of that item is that it is known by the
taxon name (P225) "Cyanistes caeruleus",  - which, further, was
authored (P405) by Lnnaeus (item Q1043) in the year (P574) 1758.

Or is that not what you meant?


Anyone wanting to know more, or to contribute, may do so at:

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



More information about the Taxacom mailing list