[SEEK-Taxon] RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?

[Paul Kirk]

Recalling the old addage that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and wearing my pedants hat let me repeat the following. The only fully justified use of a scientific name (of a species) is in the context of reference to the name bearing type. Hence all homotypic names should, other things being equal, carry the same concept. This is one part of what LC is about because the concept doesn't have to be defined. All other uses of that name (i.e. not with reference to the name bearing type) are sensu that name by the user. For example, Jessie and Walter are Homo sapiens sensu Kirk 2005 ;-) One of my 'fears' of TCS is that however elegantly we model 'Kirk 2005' it's about as useful as an underwater hair drier and my 'fear' is that 99.9999% of the concepts we model are of equal use. 

Let me repeat again, taxonomy (concept articulation) comes before nomenclature. With this in mind the question Jessie poses to Walter is a non question. From the above a scientific name absolutely does have a concept - that articulated by the author of the name in the protologue and based on the name bearing type! Assuming we restrict our discussions to fact and exclude fiction.

The 'except at a push' is one of the main cornerstones of nomenclatural stability - it cannot be considered so lightly.

I guess that's all for now ...

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Kennedy, Jessie
To: Berendsohn, Walter G.; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE; nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp; dhobern at gbif.org; franz at nceas.ucsb.edu; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz; ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at CABI.ORG; bti at dsmz.de; garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert; C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk; yjong at science.uva.nl; weitzman at si.edu; rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov; sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org; S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org; ict.staff at gbif.org; roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu; gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net; gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
Sent: 02/03/05 08:35
Subject: RE: LC/TCS - How many schemas?

Hi Walter

Just for clarification...
do you mean you want to identify something with a name as per LC rather
than the name of a concept as per TCS?
I thought we had strong agreement in Christchurch that it was
menaingless to identify something to a name and it would be more
appropriate to be identified to a concept (name) - but this doens't mean
you have to include the definition of the concept - only enough to
uniquely identify the concept which of course the scientific name
doesn't do, as we all know.
A name as per LC has no definition except at at a push the type
specimen.

thanks,

Jessie

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Berendsohn, Walter G. [mailto:w.berendsohn at bgbm.org]
>Sent: 02 March 2005 07:56
>To: Kennedy, Jessie; G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE; nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp;
>dhobern at gbif.org; franz at nceas.ucsb.edu; CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz;
>ghw at anbg.gov.au; lblaine at atcc.org; p.kirk at CABI.ORG; bti at dsmz.de;
>garrity at msu.edu; Kukla, Robert; C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk; yjong at science.uva.nl;
>weitzman at si.edu; rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu; cwilson at usgs.gov;
>sblum at CalAcademy.org; seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org;
>S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org; sci.staff at gbif.org; ict.staff at gbif.org;
>roger at hyam.net; jones at nceas.ucsb.edu; gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net;
>gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net
>Subject: LC/TCS - How many schemas? 
>
>
>Dear All,
>
>I think that we have to achieve common data definitions on the data
>element level and for a number of types as well. Different purposes may
>need different schemas, as Jerry has indicated. However, 
>different needs
>as to, for example, integrity can also be covered by extensions to
>common types, as Gregor has demonstrated for SDD and UBIF. 
>
>I still think that we have at least three levels of needed
>standardisation: the full taxonomic concept "world" (excluding the
>geographical and descriptive data used to circumscribe the taxon), the
>full "nomenclator world" as defined by the codes, including
>_nomenclatural_ relationships to other names and assertions as to
>adherence to the rules of nomenclature, and the normal murky name as
>used by many databases out there, where no further definition 
>of concept
>etc. is given. I would like to have this latter component somewhat
>isolated, e.g. as a type, from the rest, because I would like 
>to plug it
>into ABCD (as the result of an identification). 
>
>Best wishes
>
>Walter
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 AM
>> To: Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability 
>> Subject: RE: [SEEK-Taxon] RE: GBIF and TCS-LC for data exchange
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------
>> This message was sent to: "Kennedy,  Jessie" 
>> <J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk>,  "G. Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>, 
>>  "Nozomi Ytow" <nozomi at biol.tsukuba.ac.jp>,  
>> <dhobern at gbif.org>,  <franz at nceas.ucsb.edu>,  
>> <CooperJ at landcareresearch.co.nz>,  <ghw at anbg.gov.au>,  
>> <lblaine at atcc.org>,  <p.kirk at CABI.ORG>,  <bti at dsmz.de>,  
>> <garrity at msu.edu>,  "Kukla,  Robert" <R.Kukla at napier.ac.uk>,  
>> <C.lyal at nhm.ac.uk>,  <yjong at science.uva.nl>,  
>> <weitzman at si.edu>,  <rlmoe at uclink4.berkeley.edu>,  
>> <cwilson at usgs.gov>,  <sblum at CalAcademy.org>,  
>> <seek-taxon at ecoinformatics.org>,  <S.Hinchcliffe at kew.org>,  
>> <sci.staff at gbif.org>,  <ict.staff at gbif.org>,  
>> <roger at hyam.net>,  "Matt Jones" <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu>, 
>> "Subcommittee for Data Access and Database Interoperability " 
>> <gbif-dadi at roles.circa.gbif.net>, "Subcommittee for Electonic 
>> Catalogue of Names of Known Organisms" 
>> <gbif-ecat at roles.circa.gbif.net> Remember that the messages 
>> sent to the list(s) go to all recipients.
>> -------------------
>> 
>> > In response to Donald's document - we've annotated the 
>document (an 
>> > email wiki ;-) ) - Please find attached our comments using 
>> tracking in 
>> > Word.
>> 
>> To continue the email wiki, I have attached the same document 
>> with my own comments appended (in blue).  The sooner others 
>> jump in on this, the more colors they'll have to choose from 
>> using Word's "Track Changes" feature -- so better hurry!
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> Aloha,
>> Rich
>> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-taxon/attachments/20050302/805517ee/attachment.htm