|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | A taxonomic rank ontology allows particular taxa to be treated as historical individuals instead of as universal types.
| + | This page is obsolete. Its contents have been transferred to [[Taxonomy ontology#Alternative Designs]]. |
| − | | + | If you are looking documentation for the Vocabulary of Ranks developed by Phenoscape, you will find it [[Taxonomic Rank Vocabulary | here]]. |
| − | [[Image:TaxonomicRankDiagram.png|750px|thumb|Taxonomic rank ontology and sample instance data. The ontology terms are surrounded by a grey background. The "Continuant" term would reside in an upper ontology such as [http://www.ifomis.org/bfo BFO]. The instance data constitute a particular taxonomy.]] | |
| − | | |
| − | Previous attempts to represent taxonomy using ontology usually include taxonomic groups as classes in the ontology. Individual organisms are seen as instances of those universal types. There could be an ontology term Mammal, such that Primates and Rodents are more particular types of Mammals (''is_a'' descendants). Taxonomies are even often used as examples to help explain ontology inheritance to new users. This scheme fails to represent reality in several ways and, as this page will demonstrate, is even misleading.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===Inference with traditional taxonomy===
| |
| − | One of the attractions of a traditional taxonomy for ontology builders that it can support the most common sort of reasoning for Description Logic ontologies. Although neither the TTO nor the NCBI taxonomy ontology attach character values to their classes, in principle such characters could be extracted from keys or from the taxonomic literature. With the addition of such properties, individuals can be classified by starting at the root of the taxonomy and traversing down the tree until either a terminal taxon (species) is reached or a node is reached where no descendant has the combination of characters displayed by the individual. For biologists, this operation is identical to use of an identification key. Such an operation is generally only defined for ''is_a'' links.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Problems with the "traditional" view===
| |
| − | * The only criterion for inclusion within a taxonomic group is physical descent from a member of that group (we are assuming a taxonomy consistent with phylogeny). There are no universal properties one could ascribe to members of "Mammalia", besides things the members happen to share at this moment. "Hair" is often used an example of a Mammalian property; but of course its commonality is the result of its presence in the common ancestor of all mammals, and many mammals lack hair almost entirely. A mammal species that had no hair at all would nevertheless still be a mammal. Such reversals are common in phylogenies and can occur for both morphological properties (e.g., loss of legs in snakes) and molecular characters (e.g., inferred origin of pseudogenes).
| |
| − | * Properties of a taxonomic group change through time: its geographic range, genetic and morphological diversity, etc. It can go extinct.
| |
| − | * Treating taxonomic groups as "classes" or "types" reinforces essentialist ideas of life forms, which evolutionary biology has completely overturned. Essentialist thought is a hindrance to understanding of the evolutionary process.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Instead treating taxa as types in an ontology, we can treat individual taxa as instances of the type Taxon, or more specifically as instances of some taxonomic rank (see figure above).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Advantages===
| |
| − | * Taxa are modeled as individuals.
| |
| − | * Taxonomic rank terms are ordered through their ''part_of'' relationships.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Inference with an ontology of taxonomic ranks + instance graph of taxa===
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Ontology]] | | [[Category:Ontology]] |
| | + | [[Category:Taxonomy]] |
| | + | [[Category:Informatics]] |
