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

Kennedy, Jessie J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk
Thu Mar 3 07:21:40 PST 2005


Richard wrote:

>
>Just as a semantic point of clarification (in the context of 
>my last couple
>of posts) -- I don't think that labels on specimens represent concept
>"definitions" either.  But I do believe that the identifer had 
>in mind a
>concept (circle), which presumably included the "dot" that is 
>the primary
>type specimen of the name that was applied (unless it was a true
>misidentification), and also included the "dot" of the specimen being
>identified by the label.  
agree

>That's why I call it a "potential" 
>concept (with
>apologies to Walter), as a broader superset containing the subset of
>"defined" concepts (which matches your view of a "concept").

if you like but why complicate things more than necessary - this is simply an identification - to a concept that has a particular name element (which is given) without reference to its definition, so it could apply to any previously published concept with that name element which we could automatically derive and perhaps even limit if we had additional information (for a separate discussion) but why worry about potential concepts that we don't even know what they are. I would treat this as an identification and as in practice treat them with some (varying) degree of uncertainty in the accuracy of the identification. i.e. keep identification separate from concept definition.
>
>The statement:
>
>"Smith identified Specimen 'X' as Taxon 'A'; following the 
>treatment of 'A
>SEC. Jones' (according to Smith)"
>
>is, to me, informationally identical to the statement:
>
>"Smith included Specimen 'X' within 'A SEC. Smith'; which is 
>congruent to 'A
>SEC. Jones' (according to Smith)"

if you really want to explode the number of concepts that we have to deal with..... but I'd say treat it as
"Smith identified Specimen 'X' as an instance of A SEC. Jones (but not by this act redefining A SEC. Jones - if someone at a later date wants ot revise A then they may want to find any identifications made against A to consider in their revision and then at that point include them or not in the circumscription of A SEC. who_ever_they_are)

>
>I just feel that the latter approach yields a more elegant 
>data management
>solution.

think I disagree.....hard to make these claims on such a small subset of the overall problem/solution

>
>> How can you name a specimen with a name if you don't know 
>what the name
>meant?
>> i.e. the concept associated with that name must've already 
>been defined.
>Now
>> if you choose not to tell me what definition you meant by the name -
>that's
>> a different matter and I'm dealing with unknown data - but 
>it's still an
>> identification.
>
>The identifier knew what it meant in his/her own mind, but in 
>many (most?)
>cases did not specifically map it to (or derive it from) a previous
>definition.  
I htink probably didn't tell us what definition they used or don't remember and have just assimilate dit into their consious

>When I pick up an fish specimen, I look at it and 
>say, "Ah Ha!
>I know what that is -- it's Aus bus."  If I sat down and reviewed 20
>different published definitions of "Aus bus", I could probably 
>pick the ones
>that were more or less congruent with my own view (depending 
>on how well
>each of the 20 different published definitions were 
>qualified).  But none of
>them specifically entered my mind when I assigned the name 
>"Aus bus" to the
>fish I just picked up.  So the "informational reality" is that 
>Richard Pyle
>had a concept of a circle that circumscribed both the primary 
>type specimen
>of "Aus bus", 
do you know that for sure? are you sure that all your identification map to type specimens? do you check these? (rhetoric questions..)

>and the particular specimen he held in his hand and
>identified.  Secondarily, Richard Pyle's mental concept could 
>be mapped to a
>formal published concept definition (either his own, or 
>someone else's),
>which would allow other users to put Richard Pyle's 
>identification into a
>broader concept(ual) context.

I just think it makes a statement about how precise you are in your identifications - if you know names mean different things then you should say what you meant - even it it does mean defining your own new concept to capture it - if you don't know names mean different things then (or are being lazy) then to someone who does know different concepts exits and for their purposes it is important to be able to tell the difference your identification could potentially be any that of the concpets he knows about or none of them and can choose to use your identification accordingly.

Jessie



More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list