Skip to main content

Scientific Names Are Ambiguous as Identifiers for Biological Taxa: Their Context and Definition Are Required for Accurate Data Integration

  • Conference paper
Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNBI,volume 3615))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Biologists use scientific names to label the organisms described in their data; however, these names are not unique identifiers for taxonomic entities. Alternative taxonomic classifications may apply the same name, associated with alternative definition or circumscription. Consequently, labelling data with scientific names alone does not unambiguously distinguish between taxon concepts. Accurate integration and comparison of biological data is required on taxon concepts, as defined in alternative taxonomic classifications. We have derived an abstract, inclusive model for the diverse representations of taxonomic concepts used by taxonomists and in taxonomic databases. This model has been implemented as a proposed standard XML schema for the exchange and comparison of taxonomic concepts between data providers and users. The representation and exchange of taxon definitions conformant with this schema will facilitate the development of taxonomic name/concept resolution services, allowing the meaningful integration and comparison of biological datasets, with greater accuracy than on the basis of name alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2004), IUCN Red List of Endangered Species, http://www.iucnredlist.org

  2. Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Filgueiras, T.S., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Skog, J.E., Trehane, P., Turland, N.J., Hawksworth, D.L. (Editors & Compilers): International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. 16th International Botanical Congress St. Louis, Missouri, 1999. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein (2000) (Regnum Vegetabile, 138)

    Google Scholar 

  3. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th edn. ICZN, London (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. ICSP (International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  5. ICTV (International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses). International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature (2000), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/rules.html

  6. http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=TCSAndTheLinneanCore

  7. Berendsohn, W.G.: The concept of “potential taxa” in databases. Taxon 22, 207–212 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berendsohn, W.G.: A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI model. Taxon 46, 283–309 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berendsohn, W., Döring, M., Geoffroy, M., Glück, K., Güntsch, A., Hahn, A., Jahn, R., Kusper, W.-H., Li, J., Röpert, D., Specht, F.: MoReTax: Handling factual information linked to taxonomic concepts in biology. Bundesamt für Naturshutz, Bonn (2003) (Schrift. Veget. 39)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taxonomic Concept Schema Complementary Documentation for Draft Standard, http://tdwg.napier.ac.uk/doc/tdwg_tcs.doc section 2.3

  11. GBIF.The Global Biodiversity Information Facility, http://www.gbif.org

  12. SEEK, The Science Environment for Ecological Knowledge (2004), http://seek.ecoinformatics.org

  13. EML, Ecological Metadata Language (2004), http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/software/eml

  14. CML. Chemical Markup Language (2004), http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/moin/ChemicalMarkupLanguage

  15. GML. Geography Markup Language (2004), http://opengis.net/gml

  16. DIGIR. Distributed Generic Information Retrieval (2004), http://digir.net

  17. ABCD. Access to Biological Collection Data (2004), http://www.bgbm.org/TDWG/CODATA

  18. Weitzman, A.L., Lyal, C.H.C.: An XML schema for taxonomic literature – taXMLit (2004), available at http://web4.si.edu/sil/bca/status.cfm

  19. MODS. Metadata Object Description Schema (2004), http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods

  20. XOBIS. XML Organic Bibliographic Information Schema (2004), http://laneweb.stanford.edu:2380/wiki/medlane/schema

  21. XMLMARC. XML Machine Readable Cataloging (2004), http://laneweb.stanford.edu:2380/wiki/medlane/xmlmarc

  22. Pyle, R.L.: Taxonomer: a relational data model for managing information relevant to taxonomic research. Phyloinformatics 1(1) (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. TDWG Linnean Core Group: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCore

  24. Paterson, T., Kennedy, J.B., Pullan, M.R., Cannon, A., Armstrong, K., Watson, M.F., Raguenaud, C., McDonald, S.M., Russell, G.: A universal character model and ontology of defined terms for taxonomic description. In: Rahm, E. (ed.) DILS 2004. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 2994, pp. 63–78. Springer, Berlin (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhong, Y., Jung, S., Pramanik, S., Beaman, J.H.: Data model and comparison query methods for interacting classifications in taxonomic databases. Taxon 45, 223–241 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhong, Y., Luo, Y., Pramanik, S., Beaman, J.H.: HICLAS: a taxonomic database system for displaying and comparing biological classification and phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 15(2), 149–156 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pullan, M.R., Watson, M.F., Kennedy, J.B., Raguenaud, C., Hyam, R.: The Prometheus taxonomic model: a practical approach to representing multiple taxonomies. Taxon 49(1), 55–75 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ytow, N., Morse, D.R., McL Roberts, D.: Nomencurator: a nomenclatural history model to handle multiple taxonomic view. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 73, 81–98 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koperski, M., Sauer, M., Braun, W., Gradstein, S.R.: Referenzeliste der Moose Deutschlands (Schriftenreihe Vegetationskunde 34). Bundesamt für Naturshutz, Bonn (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  30. DWC. The Darwin Core (2004), http://speciesanalyst.net/docs/dwc

  31. Geoffroy, M., Berendsohn, W.: The concept problem in taxonomy: importance, components, approaches. In: Berendsohn, et al. (eds.), pp. 5–14 (2003) [9]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kennedy, J.B., Kukla, R., Paterson, T. (2005). Scientific Names Are Ambiguous as Identifiers for Biological Taxa: Their Context and Definition Are Required for Accurate Data Integration. In: Ludäscher, B., Raschid, L. (eds) Data Integration in the Life Sciences. DILS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3615. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11530084_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11530084_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27967-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31879-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics