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

[Richard Pyle]

> yes we did mean Relationships within the TaxonConcept.

Thanks for the confirmation!

> 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.

So "Relationships" are associations made within the context of the concept
definition itself, and RelationshipAssertions are made external to the
concept definition itself...correct?  Is it true, though, that both capture
essentially the same information (i.e., that "Concept1 relates to Concept2
in this way") -- just that in one case the "AccordingTo" is the
concept-definer (and hence the relationships are taken as objective
definitions), and in the other case the the "AccordintTo" is external to the
definition event (and thus taken as an subjective interpretations)?

> >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.

More on this in my next post.

Aloha,
Rich