[tcs-lc] nameObjects, spellings, vernaculars, etc

[Paul Kirk]

Rich,
 
Under the ICBN, Art. 61.1. states that only one orthographical variant of any one name is treated as validly published; so in the Index Fungorum nomenclator there will only be one 'correct' record for each name (plus one additional subsidary record if the original orthography is incorrect - although this record will only function as a pointer to the 'correct' record; other orthographic variants will not be tracked in Index Fungorum and I would assume that 'name usage' systems, like the GBIF portal index, would do this). In any of the recent discussions on 'names' when a reference is made to a 'name' in the sense of one of these 'correct' records in Index Fungorum I'm assuming (correctly?) that an option would be to include an LSID for that 'name' rather than the character string(s) representing the name+author+date. If users of names saw the utility of doing this it would solve the problems associated with trying to resolve the many variations in author citations due to differing forms/abbreviations.
 
Cheers,
 
Paul 

________________________________

From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org on behalf of Richard Pyle
Sent: Sat 30/04/2005 21:59
To: Nozomi Ytow; tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] nameObjects, spellings, vernaculars, etc



> > > I see four primary forms being important. (1) The raw
> > > character string, what ever it is, including vernaculars,
> > I've used the terms "VerbatimNameString" to refer to this, but
> for LC, James
> > proposed "Name-literal" (I think this is what he meant by that
> > term).
>
> I'm not confident.  If 'raw' implies a XML document representationt of
> character string appeared in database, then it is name-string.

I interpreted "raw" as what appears on the printed page; not necessarily
converted to electronic format.  But if it assumes conversion to electronic
format, then I agree with you, it is Name-string, not Name-literal.

> However, in the Bob's context, 'raw' seems implying each name-usage
> in my terminology.

I interpret all of the first three of his examples as usage; whereas #4 is
independent of usage.

Perhaps that is the key distinction between what I see as a name that is a
string/property, vs. a Name "Object".  The string/property name always
exists in the context of a usage, whereas the name "object" exists
independent of any particular usage context (although properties of a Name
object can include references to one or more "special" usage instances, such
as the original description).

> I suspect Bob's category #4 is what to be covered
> by nameObject, so its 'value' could be a name-literal,

But a nameObject would not necessarily have any one particular "value".
Perhaps there is one code-correct value, but there may also be other values
representing orthographic variants.

Aloha,
Rich


_______________________________________________
Tcs-lc mailing list
Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050430/894b2081/attachment.htm