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

[Richard Pyle]

My own answers to Jerry's questions (again, redirected to the new tcs-lc
list):

> 1) do you think that LC now identifies a significant proportion of
> nomenclatural elements and relationships across all codes?

In terms of elements, I think we certainly have enough of them to get
started.  But I don't see the obstacle to a first-generation implementation
being the need to fully articluate all the various elements.  I think we're
still stuck at fundamentalt questions such as whether "Aus bus Smith" and
"Xus bus Smith (Pyle)" should be modelled as two usage contexts for the same
"name object" within the schema, vs. two separate name objects secondarily
joined by a common basionym (not to be confused with how they are rendered
at the user interface) -- and other such fundamental issues.

> 2) have you agreed a boundary for including names that lie outside the
> code, but which have a 'nomenclatural' linkage to names considered
> within the codes?

Hmmm....such as...?  I'm not sure I understand the question.  The one
fundamental thing that we did all seem to agree on was that we would remain
within Linnean-style, Code-goverened domains of names (not sure what we
decided for trade names and cultivars, but definitely we excluded vernacular
names -- at least for the first pass).  However, I think it is important to
accomodate non-code-compliant Linnean-style name "place-holders" -- such as
"Pseudanthias sp. 24" and such (which are really cases where the name is
used as though it is a Linnean-style name, without the code-compliant
epithet).

> 3) is it true to say that most current LC debate is about packaging and
> not content?

If you consider my Botany "name" vs. Zoology "name" issue above as a
"content" issue, then I'd say my answer is "no" (although I think the
packaging issues are greater in number and may take more time to sort out --
but the content issues that concern me are more fundamental).

In the spirit of Roger's question, might I suggest that the first-pass focus
on modelling Basionyms and Replacement Names, and then sort our whether new
combinations should be modelled as "names" vs. "special case usages" on a
later pass?  We all seem to agree on Basionyms.

> It seems to me that if the answer to these three questions is 'yes', or
> even 'nearly', then we have sufficient scope and quality assurance. I
> also believe, that in this group at least, we all understand the
> significant issues around taxon concepts well enough to move forward
> from the current rhetoric.

I believe we all share a sufficient understanding of the issues of taxon
concepts -- but I'm not entirely convinced that we are all speaking the same
language when we use the same words.  For example, I think the idea of a
"concept" that Paul was using to come up with his "99.9999%" estimate is not
the same thing as what Walter meant by that word when he provided a "50%"
estimate.

Rich