[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Nico Franz]

Hi Gregor:

   We've stated on various occasions that - for a concept approach to 
fully succeed - individual experts, museums, on-line providers, 
ecologist users, etc. will have to be more explicit about what kind of 
speaker role (author, identifier) they wish to assume. This so because 
calling everything a concept will lead to useless and highly redundant 
inflation of poorly defined concepts. To make such inferences (concept 
vs. identification) about something published in the past is of course 
not always easy or unambiguous. Bob just gave some guidelines and they 
seem sensible as a good first approximation. Why push further? I think 
these issues will eventually sort themselves out in practice.

Best,

Nico

Gregor Hagedorn wrote:

>>1. To identify is to link an observation to a concept.
>>
>>3. The list of birds I have observed around my home is a list of
>>identifications. A determination label on a museum specimen is an
>>identification, even though the specific concept being linked to might be
>>unclear. A publication that lists the taxa known from a specific geographic
>>area is a list of identifications if and only if there is a statement as to
>>which field guide or other authoritative set of concepts the names are being
>>linked to; otherwise it is a list of concepts (albeit rather vague, as in the
>>ITIS list).
>>    
>>
>
>Taken strictly: Does that implies that all current identifications on specimen
>labels or in publications define concepts because the are name usage
>instancesrather than links to concepts?
>
>I do not content that there is a distinction between identification and concept
>definition, but think it is not that simple - and extremely hard to define. I
>feel unable to define whether someone who publishes that some species occurs in
>a geographic area, on a specific host plant, has certain enzymatic activities,
>produces some metabolites, or has a published DNA sequences is only identifying
>species or publishing a new concept.
>
>In the DNA community the publication of sufficient amount of sequences is fully
>acceptable concept definition. It is complete, sufficient, and probably more
>reliable than a morphological diagnosis. The morphological diagnosis is more
>convenient to those not having the molecular tools and the money, though. But
>then for yeasts, publishing a set of enzymatic activities also is THE main part
>of diagnosis.
>
>Can we define when someone intends to define a new concept, when someone 
>intends to apply a concept in an identification, and when something is 
>undefined? I believe 99% of biological knowledge is in the latter category.
>
>Gregor
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
>Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
>Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
>Königin-Luise-Str. 19           Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
>14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tcs-lc mailing list
>Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>  
>