[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LinneanCore Group Work

[Gregor Hagedorn]

Nico wrote:
> > that matter) that there is anything "inpedendent" about
> > nomenclature that would
> > take a serious hit if represented as a concept. Or about
> > nomenclatural relations
> > that as represented as "sec." relatioship assertions. Look at
> > Linnaean taxonomy
> > as "concepts 'light'," and at the Codes as "concepts 'light'
> > manuals." Forget
> > the objective/subjective distinction, it is irrelevant here (and
> > probably wrong too). Then your position about concepts will become
> > consistent with your own practice, and consistent with the TCS.

I don't have a problem with nomenclature as "concept light". Or type-
concept-type - the circumscription is a single point. But many things 
are concepts, and that "singular type concept", "specimen 
circumscription concept" and "hierarchical enumerated concept" all 
include the term "concept" does not mean they need to be treated 
identical, despite having vastly different properties.

My major reason to invest into conventional scientific organism names 
and nomenclature is that this is what many people working in biology, 
but not engaged in the "taxon concept debate" understand. This is not 
limited to "nomenclaturists". It is something that is operational 
(despite that many conclusions are only approximate), and which is 
embedded in the existing datasources. And GBIF can make "light" 
progress using this level. And then have TCS to test and elaborate 
"concept-full". Test for which use-cases (except the taxonomers own 
use cases) it works - things presumably tested in SEEK. The educate a 
whole new generation of biologists to think different from what 
biologists think (or simply assimilated) now.