Advertisement

A Universal Character Model and Ontology of Defined Terms for Taxonomic Description

  • Trevor Paterson
  • Jessie B. Kennedy
  • Martin R. Pullan
  • Alan Cannon
  • Kate Armstrong
  • Mark F. Watson
  • Cédric Raguenaud
  • Sarah M. McDonald
  • Gordon Russell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2994)

Abstract

Taxonomists classify biological specimens into groups (taxa) on the basis of similarities between their observed features (‘characters’). The description of these ‘characters’ is therefore central to taxonomy, but there is currently no agreed model, defined terminology nor methodology for composing these descriptions. This lack of a common conceptual model, together with the individualistic working practices of taxonomists, means that descriptions are not composed consistently, and are not easy to interpret and re-use, nor are datasets comparable. The purpose of the Prometheus II project is to improve the interpretation and comparison of plant descriptions. To this end we propose a new conceptual model for unambiguously representing character descriptions, and have developed a controlled vocabulary as an ontology of defined terms, which will be used to describe specimens according to our character model.

Keywords

State Group Structure Term State Term Structural Context Qualitative State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilkinson, M.: A comparison of two methods of character construction. Cladistics 11, 297–308 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cannon, A., McDonald, S.M.: Prometheus II - Qualitative Research Case Study: Capturing and relating character concepts in plant taxonomy (2001), www.prometheusdb.org/resources.html
  3. 3.
    Colless, D. H.: On ’character’ and related terms. Systematic Zoology 34, 229–233(1995); Keogh, J.S.: The importance of systematics in understanding the biodiversity crisis: the role of biological educators. Journal of Biol. Educ. 29 , 293–299 (1995) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diederich, J., Fortuner, R., Milton, J.: Construction and integration of large character sets for nematode morpho-anatomical data. Fundamental and Applied Nematology 20, 409–424 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DELTA: Dallwitz, M.J.: A general system for coding taxonomic descriptions. Taxon 29, 41–46 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NEXUS: Maddison, D.R., Swofford, D.L., Maddison, W.P.: NEXUS: An extensible file format for systematic information. Systematic Biology 46, 590–621 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    LUCID: Developed by Centre for Biological Information Technology: University of Queensland, Australia, www.cpitt.uq.edu.au, www.lucidcentral.com
  8. 8.
    Davis, P.H., Heywood, V.H.: Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Oliver and Boyd Edinburgh (1963)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    TDWG (International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases), www.tdwg.org; Structure of Descriptive Data.: Subgroup Session Report at the TDWG Meeting in Frankfurt (2000) www.tdwg.org/tdwg2000/sddreport
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Allkin, R.: Handling Taxonomic Descriptions by Computer. In: Allkin, R., Bisby, F.A. (eds.) Databases in Systematics, Academic Press, London (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Science Environment for Ecological Knowledge: seek.ecoinformatics.org
  13. 13.
    Cui, Z., Jones, D.M., O’Brien, P.: Semantic B2B Integration: Issues in Ontology-based Applications. SIGMOD Record 31, 43–48 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Omelayenko, B.: Syntactic-Level Ontology Integration Rules for E-commerce. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS-2001), Key West, FL, pp. 324–328 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    W3C: OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
  17. 17.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology and Information Systems. In: Formal Ontologies in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS 1998, Trento, Italy, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sheth, A.: Changing Focus on Interoperability in Information Systems: From System, Syntax, Structure to Semantics. In: Goodchild, M.F., Egenhofer, M.J., Fegeas, R., Kottman, C.A. (eds.) Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, pp. 5–30. Kluwer, Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaiswal, P., Ware, D., Ni, J., Chang, K., Zhao, W., Schmidt, S., Pan, X., Clark, K., Teytel-man, L., Cartinhour, S., Stein, L., McCouch, S.: Conference Review: Gramene: Development and Integration of Trait and Gene Ontologies for Rice. Comparative and Functional Genomics 3, 132–136 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Plant Ontology Consortium: Conference Review: The Plant Ontology Consortium and Plant Ontologies. Comparative and Functional Genomics, vol. 3, pp. 137–142 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Plant Ontology Consortium: www.plantontology.org
  22. 22.
    The Gene Ontology Consortium: www.geneontology.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trevor Paterson
    • 1
  • Jessie B. Kennedy
    • 1
  • Martin R. Pullan
    • 2
  • Alan Cannon
    • 1
  • Kate Armstrong
    • 2
  • Mark F. Watson
    • 2
  • Cédric Raguenaud
    • 1
  • Sarah M. McDonald
    • 2
  • Gordon Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingNapier UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Royal Botanic GardenEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations