[tcs-lc] Clarification & Correction [was: more TCS/LC interaction]

[Kennedy, Jessie]

Rich said:
>
>In one of my recent notes, I wrote several comments all related to:
>
>> If I'm wrong about this assumed use of RelationshipAssertion 
>to store "is
>> type species of" information, then I apologize for muddying 
>the waters.
>
>...and I think I just figured out on my own that I am, indeed, 
>muddying the
>waters.  When Jessie & Nico made references to "Relationships", I
>immediately (and I think erroneously) assumed this meant
>"RelationshipAssertions".  It dawned on me just now that they 
>probably meant
>the "Relationships" element within the TaxonConcept container 
>(Jessie??).
>

yes we did mean Relationships within the TaxonConcept.

RelationshipAssertions are to allow assertions to be made about concepts after they have been defined but do not actually change the definition of the concept.

>If so, this makes things a bit more palatable...but the 
>fundamental point
>remains that connections of a nomenclatural sort between names 
>would still
>remain outside of the "Name"/LC subschema -- which is what we 
>were talking
>about.

but as "names" are parts of concepts you can have nomenclatural relationships between concepts - be these between two original concepts e.g. to show a new combination, an original and a revised cocnept to show e.g. a basionym relationship or between a nominal concept and an original or a revised concept to show a change in say spelling to be code compliant. 

Which is why I'm saying you don't need to have the realtionships in the LC subschema.


Jessie