- From: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:47:24 +0200
- To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> One of them is mussels. Q: what should this resolve to?
It seems that this is a VERY common problem when one has to map existing taxonomies and classification schemes. Many of them do not have a concise class-subclass structure. Two examples I had to deal with already are Entrez Taxonomy and the IUPHAR naming scheme of receptors. The problem is that in such complex taxonomies there are many different levels of granularity (phylum, class, genus, species etc.), but most taxonomies/naming schemes do not cover all of these different levels of granularity. For instance, from the IUPHAR naming scheme we can derive a code for a serotonin receptor ('2.1:5HT:') and codes for serotonin receptors 1A, 2A, 2B etcc ('2.1:5HT:1:5HT1A:' etc.), but there is no code for serotonin receptor 2, or serotonin receptor 4 (including all of its subtypes). This can be very annoying in practice.
Another problem is that many databases use more general names (e.g. 'frog') when they are in practice referring to a more specific thing (e.g. 'Xenopus sp.').
kind regards,
Matthias Samwald
PS: I would guess that 'bivalvia' would be the common taxonomic term that is semantically closest in meaning to 'mussels'.
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 09:14:19 UTC