P31 for animals: Replied to TomT0m
← Older revision
Revision as of 00:08, 26 January 2014
Line 146:
Line 146:
: As I point out to [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] in a [[Wikidata:Project_chat#Breeds_and_taxonomy|discussion above]], dogs are commonly classified by breed in ''Nature''-caliber scientific literature; thus, dog breeds are scientific classifications. Levels of biological grouping below species or subspecies is often not covered by taxonomic databases, but that does not mean the grouping is not essentially taxonomic. Dog breed is a classification widely used in both scientific literature ''and'' the lay public, so I think it would be reasonable to dog breed as a P31 value for dogs. [[User:Emw|Emw]] ([[User talk:Emw|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
: As I point out to [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] in a [[Wikidata:Project_chat#Breeds_and_taxonomy|discussion above]], dogs are commonly classified by breed in ''Nature''-caliber scientific literature; thus, dog breeds are scientific classifications. Levels of biological grouping below species or subspecies is often not covered by taxonomic databases, but that does not mean the grouping is not essentially taxonomic. Dog breed is a classification widely used in both scientific literature ''and'' the lay public, so I think it would be reasonable to dog breed as a P31 value for dogs. [[User:Emw|Emw]] ([[User talk:Emw|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:: That's quite a big step to do. The fact it's used in scientific publications does not imply it's a taxonomy and a relevant taxonomy. If I say they are used because their parenthood are traceable it's probaly as relevant. What would prove your point is a paper related to taxonomy or a scientific dog taxonomy database. [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] ([[User talk:TomT0m|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 22:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:: That's quite a big step to do. The fact it's used in scientific publications does not imply it's a taxonomy and a relevant taxonomy. If I say they are used because their parenthood are traceable it's probaly as relevant. What would prove your point is a paper related to taxonomy or a scientific dog taxonomy database. [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] ([[User talk:TomT0m|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 22:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
+
::: [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]], last weekend you began by [[Wikidata:Project_chat#Breeds_and_taxonomy|suggesting that dog breeds are not a scientific classification]], then when I rebutted that by showing that dogs breeds are used as a type of scientific classification in highly-cited scientific publication, you moved the goalpost to claim that dog breeds are not relevant phylogenetic classifications. I then explained how dog breeds are they are indeed relevant phylogenetic classifications, again with a link to a scientific journal article supporting the claim. Those detailed explanations were followed up with a dismissive response that "I know all that" -- which seemed odd, since I had just spent several paragraphs contradicting your suggestions that dog breeds aren't scientific or phylogenetic. The fact remains: dog breeds are clearly relevant scientific and phylogenetic classifications of members of the class ''Canis lupus familiaris''.
+
::: I do not understand the motivation of these attempts to semantic wiggle around the fact that dog breeds are clearly relevant classifications of dogs as it concerns Wikidata. Let's assume for a moment that dog breeds are scientific and phylogenetic classifications but not "taxonomic" classification. Then what does taxonomic even mean? It a class not taxonomic unless it is in a database with other taxonomic classes? That seems superficial and inadequate as a defining feature. Taxonomy predicated upon classifying life based on salient morphological and phylogeny. Dog breeds satisfy both of those criteria.
+
::: As explained previously, the papers ''[http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000452 A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs]'' and ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494089/ Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication]'' show that dog breeds are scientific and phylogenic subclasses of {{Q|144}}. The latter, published in ''Nature'', used 81 dog breeds defined by the American Kennel Club as a basis for their research: see the first paragraph of [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494089/bin/NIHMS224957-supplement-01.pdf Supplementary Table 1].
+
::: Furthermore, breed is used as a taxonomic classification by the US Department of Agriculture, as shown in their 2010 ''[http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahss/docs/standards_appendixB_subject_taxonomy_v20100108.pdf Standardized Taxonomy Usage Recommendations]''. This is maintained by the [http://vtsl.vetmed.vt.edu/nahln/main.cfm National Animal Health Laboratory Network], which bases its classifications on the SNOMED and LOINC data standards. That standard does not include dog breeds, but it includes breeds of several common animals and demonstrates that breed is supported as a level of taxonomic classification by relevant reliable sources.
+
::: So we see that breeds are not only relevant in their scientific and phylogenetic nature, but also supported as a level of taxonomic classification by relevant institutions. Given that, dog breed seems like a very relevant value for P31 in dogs. [[User:Emw|Emw]] ([[User talk:Emw|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
== Bit confused ==
== Bit confused ==