[tcs-lc] TCS/LC Name Domain

[Gregor Hagedorn]

>    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.

When taking a perspective of a "future code of biological conduct" rather than 
existing biology, it would help me to explicitly state this. I (and I believe 
many others discussing here) have another perspective, dealing with existing 
biological knowledge. 

I do agree that elaborating an "International code of taxon concept conduct" 
(ICTCC) is valuable - even if this looks like making fun of it... 

But I also think that existing biological information is at the moment more 
important for GBIF. It would help me if proposals for the future could also 
include explicit handling procedure for current practices - this is really what 
I try to "push further". That is, the only thing I disagree with is your last 
sentence.

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