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

[Richard Pyle]

> >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

See...there's the rub.  You see it as complicating things, and I see it as
simplying things! :-)

> - 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.

How do you distinguish between an "Identification" and direct reference to a
Voucher in the context of a Concept definition?  Are these fundamentally
different things, in your mind?

> >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

I guess my point is that we don't need to explode the number that "we need
to deal with", if the "we need to deal with" part is a clearly delineated
subset.  But I think we're going off on a tangent that might best be put off
until later.

> >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

Agreed!!!! (with everything following the ".....") :-)

> 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

I COMPLETELY agree -- and the world would certainly be a much better place
if all (or even a substantial number of) existing identifications were
"self-mapped" in this way.  But the reality is that they are not.

But this actually isn't really relevant to what seems to be the point we are
disagreeing on (or maybe we are agreeing on....I can't tell for sure! :-)  )

Let me get through the other posts and we can maybe come back to this.

Rich