The model I'm adopting is that the classification is a graph where nodes have the id used by the external database (in this case GBIF). Each node has one or more names attached, and where possible the names are linked to the original description. Where we have synonyms it would be nice to link the synonymy to publication(s) that proposed that relationship.
Rants, raves (and occasionally considered opinions) on phyloinformatics, taxonomy, and biodiversity informatics. For more ranty and less considered opinions, see my Twitter feed.
ISSN 2051-8188. Written content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
BioNames update - taxon concepts
Quick notes on "taxon concepts". In order to navigate through taxon names I plan to have at least one taxonomic classification in BioNames. GBIF makes the most sense at this stage.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52511/525111a93a2c08fb2e718b9b9822a77a0e846894" alt="taxonconcept.png Taxonconcept"
The model I'm adopting is that the classification is a graph where nodes have the id used by the external database (in this case GBIF). Each node has one or more names attached, and where possible the names are linked to the original description. Where we have synonyms it would be nice to link the synonymy to publication(s) that proposed that relationship.
The model I'm adopting is that the classification is a graph where nodes have the id used by the external database (in this case GBIF). Each node has one or more names attached, and where possible the names are linked to the original description. Where we have synonyms it would be nice to link the synonymy to publication(s) that proposed that relationship.
Labels:
BioNames,
GBIF,
taxon concepts