[Taxacom] Wikidata and Wikispecies

Paul Kirk P.Kirk at kew.org
Thu Oct 29 08:54:36 CDT 2015


OK but ... whilst I accept that you have not defined the structure of your proposed taxon identifier there must be a mechanism, in the case that the taxon concept includes multiple name identifiers, to link these name identifiers together as a minimalist concept, and if not I fail to see the advantage of a taxon identifier in it's simplest form, e.g. 123456 ... TCS revisted (http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tnc/)?

Paul

________________________________________
From: Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
Sent: 29 October 2015 09:10
To: Paul Kirk
Cc: Andy Mabbett; Taxa com; urmas.koljalg at ut.ee
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikidata and Wikispecies

Hi Paul,

>
> Your last paragraph might be interpreted by some to mean that you consider the existing resources in the domain of nomenclature and taxonomy are not useful. Since molecular data are now very important in defining taxa in the fungi perhaps Wikidata should be encouraged to duplicate the resources available from the INSDC ;-)
>
> Paul


Not sure how you got that impression :O  Instead I’d like identifiers for taxa (NCBI, GBIF, EOL, etc., etc.) to go with taxa, and identifiers for names (ION, IPNI, ZooBank, Index Fungorum, etc., etc.) to go with names.

Regards

Rod


> ________________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Sent: 27 October 2015 07:52
> To: Andy Mabbett
> Cc: Taxa com
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikidata and Wikispecies
>
> 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


More information about the Taxacom mailing list