分类数据与分类单元概念标准(TCS)共享与链接的改进

Niels Klazenga
{"title":"分类数据与分类单元概念标准(TCS)共享与链接的改进","authors":"Niels Klazenga","doi":"10.3897/biss.7.112045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term ‘taxonomic backbone’ is often used to indicate the compromise taxonomies that form the taxonomic backbone of systems like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). However, the term can also be seen in the broader sense as the entire expansive and continually evolving body of taxonomic work that underpins all biodiversity data and the linkage of all the different concepts that are used in various parts of the world and by various groups of people.\n The Taxon Concept Schema (TCS; Hyam and Kennedy 2006), which was ratified as a TDWG standard in 2005, came forth from the need of providers of taxonomic information for a mechanism to exchange data with other providers and users. Additionally, there was the knowledge that taxon names make poor identifiers for taxa and that more than names are needed for effective sharing and linking of biodiversity data. The same name can be associated with multiple taxon concepts or definitions, especially when a name has been around for a long time or is used in a heavily revised group. In order for others to know what a name means, people who use a name should also indicate which concept of that name is being used. Traditionally, the Latin ‘sensu’ or `sec.` have been used for this purpose; in TCS, an ‘according to’ property is used. The taxon concept, along with a language to relate different concepts, which is also in TCS, was later introduced to a systematic audience in an article by Franz and Peet (2009).\n Unfortunately, TCS has never enjoyed wide adoption and since Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) was ratified in 2009, sharing of taxonomic information has mostly been done with the Darwin Core Taxon class. However, various issues with the Darwin Core Taxon class (e.g., Darwin Core and RDF/OWL Task Groups 2015) have made us look at TCS again and in 2020 the Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group was formally renamed the TCS Maintenance Group. In 2021, a TCS 2 Task Group was established with the goal to update TCS to a Vocabulary Standard (like Darwin Core) that can be maintained under the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification (Vocabulary Maintenance Specification Task Group 2017).\n As it currently stands, TCS 2 (TCS 2 Task Group 2023) has two classes for dealing with taxonomy, the Taxon Concept and Taxon Relationship classes, and two classes for dealing with nomenclature, the Taxon Name and Nomenclatural Type classes. TCS 2 describes objects that are present and known in the domain and uses terms that are used in the domain (e.g., Greuter et al. 2011, Hawksworth 2010), so is easily understood by practitioners in the domain and other users of taxonomic information, as well as data specialists and developers. At the same time, it is in accordance with the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS; Miles and Bechhofer 2009).\n TCS 2 can be used to mark up taxon concepts of any type, including taxonomic treatments, checklists, field guides, as well as systems like the Catalogue of Life and AviBase. Once marked up as TCS, concepts of all types look the same and therefore a small standard of under 40 terms can be used to share and link all taxonomic information and to link to other types of biodiversity data, for example occurrence data or descriptive data.","PeriodicalId":9011,"journal":{"name":"Biodiversity Information Science and Standards","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improved Sharing and Linkage of Taxonomic Data with the Taxon Concept Standard (TCS)\",\"authors\":\"Niels Klazenga\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/biss.7.112045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The term ‘taxonomic backbone’ is often used to indicate the compromise taxonomies that form the taxonomic backbone of systems like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). However, the term can also be seen in the broader sense as the entire expansive and continually evolving body of taxonomic work that underpins all biodiversity data and the linkage of all the different concepts that are used in various parts of the world and by various groups of people.\\n The Taxon Concept Schema (TCS; Hyam and Kennedy 2006), which was ratified as a TDWG standard in 2005, came forth from the need of providers of taxonomic information for a mechanism to exchange data with other providers and users. Additionally, there was the knowledge that taxon names make poor identifiers for taxa and that more than names are needed for effective sharing and linking of biodiversity data. The same name can be associated with multiple taxon concepts or definitions, especially when a name has been around for a long time or is used in a heavily revised group. In order for others to know what a name means, people who use a name should also indicate which concept of that name is being used. Traditionally, the Latin ‘sensu’ or `sec.` have been used for this purpose; in TCS, an ‘according to’ property is used. The taxon concept, along with a language to relate different concepts, which is also in TCS, was later introduced to a systematic audience in an article by Franz and Peet (2009).\\n Unfortunately, TCS has never enjoyed wide adoption and since Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) was ratified in 2009, sharing of taxonomic information has mostly been done with the Darwin Core Taxon class. However, various issues with the Darwin Core Taxon class (e.g., Darwin Core and RDF/OWL Task Groups 2015) have made us look at TCS again and in 2020 the Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group was formally renamed the TCS Maintenance Group. In 2021, a TCS 2 Task Group was established with the goal to update TCS to a Vocabulary Standard (like Darwin Core) that can be maintained under the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification (Vocabulary Maintenance Specification Task Group 2017).\\n As it currently stands, TCS 2 (TCS 2 Task Group 2023) has two classes for dealing with taxonomy, the Taxon Concept and Taxon Relationship classes, and two classes for dealing with nomenclature, the Taxon Name and Nomenclatural Type classes. TCS 2 describes objects that are present and known in the domain and uses terms that are used in the domain (e.g., Greuter et al. 2011, Hawksworth 2010), so is easily understood by practitioners in the domain and other users of taxonomic information, as well as data specialists and developers. At the same time, it is in accordance with the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS; Miles and Bechhofer 2009).\\n TCS 2 can be used to mark up taxon concepts of any type, including taxonomic treatments, checklists, field guides, as well as systems like the Catalogue of Life and AviBase. Once marked up as TCS, concepts of all types look the same and therefore a small standard of under 40 terms can be used to share and link all taxonomic information and to link to other types of biodiversity data, for example occurrence data or descriptive data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biodiversity Information Science and Standards\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biodiversity Information Science and Standards\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.7.112045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biodiversity Information Science and Standards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.7.112045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“分类主干”一词通常用于表示构成全球生物多样性信息设施(GBIF)和澳大利亚生活地图集(ALA)等系统分类主干的折衷分类。然而,该术语也可以在更广泛的意义上被视为支撑所有生物多样性数据和世界各地和各种人群使用的所有不同概念之间联系的整个广泛和不断发展的分类学工作体。分类单元概念图式(TCS);Hyam and Kennedy 2006)于2005年被批准为TDWG标准,它源于分类信息提供者需要一种与其他提供者和用户交换数据的机制。此外,人们还认识到,分类群名称对分类群的标识效果较差,要有效地共享和链接生物多样性数据,需要的不仅仅是名称。同一个名称可以与多个分类单元概念或定义相关联,特别是当一个名称已经存在很长时间或在经过大量修订的组中使用时。为了让别人知道一个名字的意思,使用一个名字的人也应该表明使用了这个名字的哪个概念。传统上,拉丁语的“sensu”或“sec”。’被用于这个目的;在TCS中,使用了' according '属性。分类单元的概念,以及一种将不同概念联系起来的语言,也在TCS中,后来在Franz和Peet(2009)的一篇文章中被系统地介绍给了读者。不幸的是,TCS从未被广泛采用,自从2009年达尔文核心分类单元(Wieczorek et al. 2012)被批准以来,分类信息的共享主要是在达尔文核心分类单元类中完成的。然而,达尔文核心分类单元类的各种问题(例如,达尔文核心和RDF/OWL任务组2015)使我们再次关注TCS,并且在2020年,分类名称和概念兴趣组正式更名为TCS维护组。2021年,TCS 2任务组成立,目标是将TCS更新为可在TDWG词汇维护规范(词汇维护规范任务组2017)下维护的词汇标准(如Darwin Core)。目前,TCS 2 (TCS 2 Task Group 2023)有两个处理分类学的类,即分类单元概念类和分类单元关系类,以及两个处理命名法的类,即分类单元名称类和命名类型类。TCS 2描述领域中存在和已知的对象,并使用领域中使用的术语(例如,Greuter et al. 2011, Hawksworth 2010),因此易于被领域从业者和其他分类信息用户以及数据专家和开发人员理解。同时,它符合OpenBiodiv Ontology (Senderov et al. 2018)和Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS;Miles and Bechhofer 2009)。TCS 2可以用来标记任何类型的分类单元概念,包括分类处理、清单、实地指南,以及像生命目录和AviBase这样的系统。一旦标记为TCS,所有类型的概念看起来都是一样的,因此可以使用不到40个术语的小标准来共享和链接所有分类信息,并链接到其他类型的生物多样性数据,例如发生数据或描述性数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improved Sharing and Linkage of Taxonomic Data with the Taxon Concept Standard (TCS)
The term ‘taxonomic backbone’ is often used to indicate the compromise taxonomies that form the taxonomic backbone of systems like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). However, the term can also be seen in the broader sense as the entire expansive and continually evolving body of taxonomic work that underpins all biodiversity data and the linkage of all the different concepts that are used in various parts of the world and by various groups of people. The Taxon Concept Schema (TCS; Hyam and Kennedy 2006), which was ratified as a TDWG standard in 2005, came forth from the need of providers of taxonomic information for a mechanism to exchange data with other providers and users. Additionally, there was the knowledge that taxon names make poor identifiers for taxa and that more than names are needed for effective sharing and linking of biodiversity data. The same name can be associated with multiple taxon concepts or definitions, especially when a name has been around for a long time or is used in a heavily revised group. In order for others to know what a name means, people who use a name should also indicate which concept of that name is being used. Traditionally, the Latin ‘sensu’ or `sec.` have been used for this purpose; in TCS, an ‘according to’ property is used. The taxon concept, along with a language to relate different concepts, which is also in TCS, was later introduced to a systematic audience in an article by Franz and Peet (2009). Unfortunately, TCS has never enjoyed wide adoption and since Darwin Core (Wieczorek et al. 2012) was ratified in 2009, sharing of taxonomic information has mostly been done with the Darwin Core Taxon class. However, various issues with the Darwin Core Taxon class (e.g., Darwin Core and RDF/OWL Task Groups 2015) have made us look at TCS again and in 2020 the Taxonomic Names and Concepts Interest Group was formally renamed the TCS Maintenance Group. In 2021, a TCS 2 Task Group was established with the goal to update TCS to a Vocabulary Standard (like Darwin Core) that can be maintained under the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification (Vocabulary Maintenance Specification Task Group 2017). As it currently stands, TCS 2 (TCS 2 Task Group 2023) has two classes for dealing with taxonomy, the Taxon Concept and Taxon Relationship classes, and two classes for dealing with nomenclature, the Taxon Name and Nomenclatural Type classes. TCS 2 describes objects that are present and known in the domain and uses terms that are used in the domain (e.g., Greuter et al. 2011, Hawksworth 2010), so is easily understood by practitioners in the domain and other users of taxonomic information, as well as data specialists and developers. At the same time, it is in accordance with the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS; Miles and Bechhofer 2009). TCS 2 can be used to mark up taxon concepts of any type, including taxonomic treatments, checklists, field guides, as well as systems like the Catalogue of Life and AviBase. Once marked up as TCS, concepts of all types look the same and therefore a small standard of under 40 terms can be used to share and link all taxonomic information and to link to other types of biodiversity data, for example occurrence data or descriptive data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信