[tcs-lc] Taxonomic Product or Taxonomic Data

[Kennedy, Jessie]

Rich said:
>Another way to look at it is having a "compartmentalized" 
>(modular) Names
>subunit within TaxonConcepts (more modular than represented in 
>the current
>version of TCS).  My favored view of this solution (which I'm 
>warming up to
>more and more as I continue to think about it) is to embed all the name
>elements within TaxonConcept in such a way that they *only* 
>exist for the
>subset of TaxonConcept instances that are of type "Nominal".  

this is not exactly what I was proposing - not sure if I even like it - I can see why you might want to do that as it looks more like there are name objects that are different from concept objects but I think there are other implications if you do this which I'd need to sit and think through and might even already have listed in previously emails - feel like we're going round in circles at times with the same thing being said in different ways...
 

>Structured
>name information for non-Nominal concepts would be accessed 
>via pointer back
>to the appropriate Nominal Concept instance (with a 
>"NameVerbatim" element
>to capture the exact orthography used in the "AccordingTo" 
>publication).
>The "pointer" could come in one of several forms (e.g., a 
>dedicated element
>of this sort more or less repalcing "NameDetailed"; or a 
>"refers to Name"
>Relationship).  That way, concept-less name data could be 
>easily and cleanly
>be passed via a subset of concepts filtered by "Type='Nominal'".
>

can't really see the benefits.....or difference from having a name objects separated out ....
 
>Also, you seem to share my view that name data should be 
>attached to Nominal
>concept instances, rather than Original concept instances (as 
>Jessie seems
>to favor).  Is this correct?

no I'm not saying and didn't say that all name information goes in a nominal concept. So it depends on what you mean by name data - if you mean the bare string information required to display a name then fine but if you mean all the relationships too then I think I disagree. I explained that a nominal concept is there to allow people to refer to meaningless taxa (i.e. taxon names without knowing what actual concept they relate to)- not to allow us to separate out naming acts from classification acts for the reasons I gave in earlier emails about these names becoming concepts by encouraged use.....

Jessie

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss
or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the 
University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.