Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘logic’

Thoughts: How many concepts are we talking about

Fourth post in this sequence (here are posts 1, 2, 3, respectively). Changing gears a little. The motivation for this post is to explore the interactions of explicitly and implicitly communicated taxonomic concepts in conversations among (living, meeting) humans with comparable levels of taxonomic expertise. How many identifiers are we talking about?

The exploration has two parts. The first part simulates a brief conversation of the kind that two human speakers may engage in while meeting in the hallways at a taxonomically oriented conference. The speakers know of each other, either through prior personal interactions or (minimally) by having read several of each other’s taxonomic publications. The conversation is hypothetical, and even though certain real persons are mentioned, the sole purpose of this is to add some realism, not to pass my judgment on any taxonomic particulars. The post is about exploring how the issue of taxonomic name/concept identifier resolution relates to this kind of communication, generally.

The second part examines the conservation from the perspective of representing taxonomic reference – “logically”. By that I mean framing the taxonomic content identifiers communicated explicitly or implicitly by the human speakers in such a way that a computational, logic-based application can adequately represent them. Ok, so here goes (in part, as it will turn out).

Read more

Thoughts: Humans, computers, and identifier granularity

Third post in this sequence. In the first post, I reviewed that biological nomenclature promotes (even requires) fairly deep taxonomic semantics, due to semantically forceful principles such as Typification, Priority, Coordination, and Binomial Names. In the second post, I suggested (again, nothing very new here) that the Linnaean system has many features which, given the task on hand (reliably identifying nature’s hierarchy), are nearly optimally aligned with evolutionarily constrained human cognitive universals.

Both posts are ultimately about advancing biodiversity informatics infrastructure design. That motivation points to finding sound models of knowledge communication in the taxonomic domain. Lessons from the two preceding posts may be as follows. (1) If the goal is to build data environments that largely continue to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of human cognitive universals, then the particular balance struck by Linnaean names and name relationships acting as identifiers of evolving human taxonomy making is adequate. (2) There may be better solutions out there, particularly solutions that more effectively utilize the reasoning and scalability strengths of computational logic.

Read more

Thoughts: Why stability in nomenclature, and at what cost?

Another post on nomenclature, related to this previous post on the possibly thankfully strong influence of nomenclatural principles on taxonomic practice.

Many taxonomists, including myself certainly, continue to wonder and explore why exactly nomenclature is the way it is. The aim is first and foremost to obtain a sound explanatory account. Whether one likes the explanations, or the practice as illuminated in part by the explanations, is initially another subject.

Read more

Taxonomic concept identification, reconciliation, and the Open Tree of Life – Part 1

“Part 1” – allowing for subsequent parts (e.g., for the blue/non-blue use case; now added at end of post). The relevant OpenTree background discussion is here:

https://github.com/OpenTreeOfLife/muriqui/issues/15

There as several interesting and generally closely overlapping issues and views here. I will pick just (or mainly) the one introduced by Jonathan Rees (November 02, 2014).

“Here’s another example I’m struggling with: there are currently a couple of species in OTT that are misclassified as crustaceans instead of molluscs. When we fix this problem, there will be an incompatible ‘change’ in the membership of Arthropoda. Does this mean that the new group should get a new identifier? – after all its identity in some sense has changed. If so, annotations and OTU mappings linked to the old id have no home in the tree. It doesn’t get a new id with the current taxonomy generator, which assumes that names are tied uniquely to taxon concepts (with some exceptions), but with a more principled system where groups are defined by membership or phylogenetic hypotheses, it might. This would have an impact on OTU mappings and annotation carryover. I don’t have a good answer to this one, but am working on ways to anchor the semantics of ids.”
 

I am attempting to reproduce this under varying scenarios in the Euler/X toolkit. Starting simple, then expanding. I have created an initial scenario with two phylogenetic perspectives of the Ecdysozoa (molting animals) sec. ott1 (= OpenTree Topology at time =1; the later version) versus Ecdysozoa sec. ott0 (OTT at time = 0; the earlier version. Initially, an alignment with complete taxonomic congruence.

Read more

Conference presentation: Explaining taxonomy’s legacy to computers – how and why?

I will give an updated presentation on the Euler/X project and concept taxonomy at the conference “The Meaning of Names: Naming Diversity in the 21st Century”, held at the Museum of Natural History, University of Colorado – Boulder, on September 29 to October 01, 2014. Slides are posted on Slideshare, and linked here. Thanks to Rob Guralnick for the invitation!

Franz. 2014. Explaining taxonomy’s legacy to computers – how and why? from taxonbytes

Can we teach logic reasoners to correctly apply nomenclatural rules?

No, this not concept taxonomy. Instead this post is intended to set up a nomenclaturally and taxonomically correct use case for an Answer Set Programming (ASP) reasoning project. The post will limit itself to: (1) getting the required nomenclatural emendations “right” (Section 4), given (2) a specific set of starting conditions (Sections 1 & 2), and (3) a new taxonomic insight that necessitates change (Section 3).

Read more

Merge taxonomies with the Euler/ASP toolkit – the Andropogon use case

We have a new manuscript ready for submission that uses the Euler/ASP toolkit to reason over taxonomic change in the Andropogon (glomeratus-virginicus) ‘complex’ – an illuminating use case assembled by the visionary Alan Weakley. More on this toolkit soon; it is ready for application to larger and more complex use cases.

Nico M. Franz, Mingmin Chen, Shizhuo Yu, Shawn Bowers &  Bertram Ludäscher

Names Are Not Good Enough: Reasoning over Taxonomic Change in the Andropogon Complex

Read more

Prior work on concept taxonomy – 2013 onwards

February, 2015. The first fleshed-out use case of reasoning over taxonomic concepts with the Euler/X toolkit is now published.

Franz, N.M., M. Chen, S. Yu, P. Kianmajd, S. Bowers & B. Ludäscher. 2015. Reasoning over taxonomic change: exploring alignments for the Perelleschus use case. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118247. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118247. Available on-line here.

An overview – initiated in early November, 2013 and regularly updated (throughout 2015) – of papers and presentations related to the taxonomic concept approach. Since the Fall/Winter of 2013 we have a working Python toolkit Euler/X (openly available on-line) that can read in two taxonomies (T1,T2), a set or articulations (A), and additional constraints (C). The toolkit then calls up Answer Set Programming reasoners to infer and visualize an alignment among the taxonomies that satisfies the constraints. A short video is posted here.

Hominoidea1993-2005

Euler/X merge of two Hominoidea classifications sec. Groves 1993/2005.


Read more