[SEEK-Taxon] RE: relationship types

[Richard Pyle]

> Accepted, although *I* believe that a willingly narrow
> interpretation of what
> the Codes govern, how they relate to their objects, and what it
> all means for
> biology is part of what has gotten us to the current concept/name
> mix-up. Maybe
> it's time to hard-wire a closer name/concept connection into our database
> systems than has been done in the past, and maybe the TCS/LC
> interaction is the
> opportunity to do so.

No arguments here!  But it ought not be done in haste.

> The question remains, if the LC-related activities CAN be
> independent (thus
> allowing the disconnect to be perpetuated), does this maximize
> benefits for
> upcoming generations of biodiversity researchers and
> systematists? I am not sure
> it does, short- or long-term.

I'm not sure, either (meaning I think it could go either way).  It depends
on how you scope "benefits".

But I've always advocated that LC exist only within a TCS wrapper, and that
it really represent the Name-only components of a taxon concept record.  I
strongly believe that we should do everything we can to shift the taxonomic
community away from name-only representation of taxa, towards concept
representations of taxa -- and to whatever extent the marriage of LC & TCS
can do to lead the community in that direction, the better.

However, that's not the same thing as abandoning the recognition that name
entities are a different class of object from concept entities; and the
rules associated with name entities are not necessarily intertwined with the
practice of concept-based taxonomy.  Thus, within TCS, I think it's
important to very clearly distinguish information associations that are
relevant to nomenclatural proceedure, from those that are relevant to
taxonomic judgement and interpretation.  In other words, I still prefer to
treat the association between a genus name and its type species as a
*fundamentally* different piece of information than the inclusion of a child
(species) taxon concept with a parent (genus) taxon concept.  My emphasis on
the word *fundamentally* is to underscore my feeling that it belongs in an
entirely different part of the schema, rather than as a "flagged" instance
within the same part of the schema.

> The more ambitious yet also more responsible
> solution might be to view the naming acts and changes with the
> actual taxonomic justifications in mind.

Hmmm....I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

> I am just not sold on this "3-independent levels" argument (see Remsen in
> Taxacom) as a scientifically optimal one. It might be preferable
> ONLY because of
> practicality issues (we [uBio] don't have the money to do
> something better), and
> if so that should be stated and people should feel uneasy about
> it.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with that sort of limitiation.  The
"three levels" approach is a reflection of centuries of reality.  To wit:

People throughout history and across the planet have used (and will almost
certainly continue to use) a wide array of text strings and symbols to
represent what you and I would think of as a taxon (=taxonomic concept;
cicrcumscription of organisms). [Level 1]

A tiny fraction of those text strings and symbols conform in their formation
and creation to established Codes of scientific nomenclature. [Level 2]

Names (whether Code-compliant or not) exist in order to represent sets
(circumscriptions) of organisms, and there is a need to create a system to
keep track of how different or the same names have been/are/will be used to
represent different or the same sets (circumscriptions) of organisms. [Level
3]

As long as there are Codes of nomenclature, there will be a meaningful and
useful demarcation between "Level 1" and "Level 2".  SEEK/TCS acknowledges
this demarcation by virtue of the fact that (at present, at least), it is
focused mainly on tracking concepts that have been, ore mostly are,
represented by Linnean-style names.

The entire SEEK/TCS effort serves as testament to the useful and meaningful
demarcation between "Level 3" and the other two levels.

I'm not sure I understand what you're not sold on -- that there are useful
decmarcations between these levels (i.e., between "scientific" and
"non-scientific" names; or between names and concepts), or something else.
Maybe you're saying that every dollar spent on "Level 1" indexing is a
dollar that could have been better spent on Level 2 or Level 3 indexing --
in which case we have a completely different issue to discuss.  All I've
been trying to say is that if different groups with different priorities are
focusing their efforts in these different areas (e.g., library community on
Level 1; LC community on Level 2; SEEK/TCS community on level 3), then it is
in everyone's best interest to keep track of what the others are working on,
so as to maximize the the global net benefit when these various systems
start to come online.

> Taxonomists
> have a history of asking for too little and making do anyway and
> that only makes
> things worse. Those are some of my underlying concerns about the
> shallow reading
> of the Code-prescribed actions and the arguments for
> independence. The can do
> vs. the should do has not been sorted out satisfactorily.

As far as I can tell, your argument really only makes sense in the context
that we (=scientific community) should wean ourselves off of the concept of
Linnean nomenclature as governed by Codes altogether.  Perhaps, but I don't
think there will be a lot of buy in from the existing community in that
case.  If this is not what you are suggesting, then I'm not sure I
understand your basic point -- that names really are the same thing as
concepts?  Or that the downside of shoe-horning non-concept-based
nomenclatural information into a schema that is specifically designed to
accomodate concept-based information, is more than offset by the upside of
coercing the scientific community towards concept-based thinking (and
documentation practices).

I'm all in favor of coercing the scientific community toward concept-based
thinking and documentation practices; but I don't think it is done
effectively via  a strategy that mixes informational apples and oranges.

Aloha,
Rich

P.S. I am uneasy about sending such long posts to this list (especially as I
am really just a tangential participant).  But I think that the issues that
Nico and I have been debating are of FUNDAMENTAL importance to the
structure, function, and ultimate adoption of TCS.