tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16081779.post1113308061368706647..comments2023-10-28T09:24:38.420+01:00Comments on iPhylo: Wiki modelling - Part 4Roderic Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00269598293846172649noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16081779.post-19951082664651727522009-02-02T21:25:00.000+00:002009-02-02T21:25:00.000+00:00The NCBI taxon id works in a way similar to the Ge...The NCBI taxon id works in a way similar to the GeoSpecies ID's in that the ID stays the same despite changes in nomenclature. I would use this except that there is no NCBI ID for most species. There needs to be a sequence for there to be an NCBI ID.<BR/><BR/>In this sense, the NCBI ID and GeoSpecies ID are compatible types of OTU's.<BR/><BR/>It seems that the genomics people are already using forms of the NCBI ID as Species URI's<BR/><BR/>This gets into what makes a good species URI.<BR/><BR/>I think that there is a species and different scientists publish taxonomic hypotheses for that species. <BR/><BR/>It seems that most others see this the other way around. <BR/><BR/>They see it from this perspective. There are publications (each with a slightly different meaning for the species they discuss). They point these at each other merge etc. and create an identifier.<BR/><BR/>Is this a useful, meaningful identifier? Maybe for publications and as additional information related to species concepts, but not something I would use to tie specimens to a operational taxonomic unit (OTU).<BR/><BR/>RelatedTopic: I have treebaseID's in the GeoSpecies database, but I have not figured out the best way to express them. Do you have a standard URI?Pete DeVrieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13883413416016252154noreply@blogger.com