[SEEK-Taxon] concept types, relationship types

[franz@nceas.ucsb.edu]

Hi all:

   We've tried to summarize and update our thinking on useful concept types.
Five main types have survived; they should help us label the kinds of taxonomic
data we need to handle.

   We're working towards a similary revised list for relationships. A first idea
is to move away a little from the purely nomenclatural/mostly taxonomic
distinction that has shaped the LC/TCS discussion. Instead we might talk about
"Code-prescribed" relationships versus "concept relationships". The latter
include  as subcategories vertical (within classification) and lateral (among
classifications) as previously.

   With respect to the code-prescribed relationships, there may be at least
three useful subcategories.

(1) "objective" - judgments about the availability/validity of an old name (in
relation to a new one) that follow necessarily just by applying code rules (pure
literature study, no NEW judgments about taxonomic relationships; example: a
grammatical error [masculine genus name/feminine species epithet] has been
detected).

(2) "subjective" - judgments that follow only because a new taxonomic assessment
alters the availability/validity of an otherwise Code-compliant name (example: a
species is transferred to another genus due to taxonomic reassessment, thus a
new combination must be created; 2 types with different names are judged to
belong to the same species - one name becomes a junior synonym).

-- obviously, sometimes an objectively necessary change in naming is required
because someone previously made a subjective taxonomic rearrangement without
following through with all concomitant name changes. These kinds of potential
downstream dependencies of taxonomy and nomenclature have affected the LC/TCS
territory discussions. Some nomeclatural acts might ultimately end up in both
categories ("normally objective, but in this case linked to a subjective
analysis"), depending on how far one goes back in the timeline to correct a now
invalid name. Most of the terms listed here
http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreNomenclaturalStatus
pertain to the "objective" category.  

-- maybe we'll find a better couplet than objective/subjective at some point,
but that is what the Codes use.

(3) "other compliance-achieving acts" - sometimes there is NO new name needed
but something like a neotypification (new type assignment) or other "repair
acts" affect the status of a name.

   We are sort of hoping that this terminology will help with the TCS/LC
interaction. It is quite clear that a LOT of what the Codes of nomenclature
prescribe ONLY follows if one agrees with a particular and subjective taxonomic
arrangement. In those cases we are dealing with "Code territory" that is also
traditionally "concept territory." So therefore we think that the
conceptual/code-prescribed distinction is better than the
conceptual/nomenclatural distinction. Of course, Trevor & Jessie have already
shown that all code-prescribed relationships and acts CAN in principle be
represented using the concept approach.

   Sorry bout the rambling (angel on the right). More later (devil on the left). 

Nico

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConceptTypesSummary2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 68096 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20050211/9f9e1f97/ConceptTypesSummary2.doc