[tcs-lc] Clarification

[Richard Pyle]

> it's subtle but only important to someone using your
> identification data, in their analysis.

Agreed.

> We need to get good
> concepts into a system which also act as references for names
> represented to an agreed standard and also store any
> identification data so people can find things that might be of
> interest in their work

Agreed. The only distinction here is whether we model it as:

1) Millions of potential concepts tied to identification events, only a
small subset of which are "defined" concepts

vs.

2) Millions of identification events, only a small subset of which are
linked to defined concepts.


> - but to start saying that what was in
> your mind every time you use a name for a concept is a
> potentially new concept and we should record this as such is I
> believe unhelpful just now.

Taken literally, I totally agree.  What I think our dispute really boils
down to is whether we draw the subjective line between "Identifications" and
"Concepts" more toward the Identifications side, or more towards the
Concepts side.  I'm pretty sure that on this topic (which is only one of
several covered in the past two emails), our difference is a function of
degree, not of kind.

Rich