[tcs-lc] Modularisation of standards

Kennedy, Jessie J.Kennedy at napier.ac.uk
Tue Mar 8 07:40:12 PST 2005


Rich wrote:

>
>The version I've been mulling about in my mind would look 
>something more
>like this:
>
><TaxonConcepts>
>  <TaxonConcept id="tc0" type="Nominal">
>    <Label>Aus bus</Label>
>    <CanonicalAuthorship>Black, 1965</CanonicalAuthorship>
>    [...and all the other LC bits]
>  </TaxonConcept>
>  <TaxonConcept id="tc1" Type="Original">
>    <NameRef id="tc0">
>    <NameVerbatim>Aus bus Black, 1965</NameVerbatim>
>    <AccordingTo>Black, 1965</AccordingTo>
>  </TaxonConcept>
>  <TaxonConcept id="tc2" Type="Revision">
>    <NameRef id="tc0">
>    <NameVerbatim>Aus bus Black</NameVerbatim>
>    <AccordingTo>Smith, 1970</AccordingTo>
>  </TaxonConcept>
>  <TaxonConcept id="tc3" Type="Revision">
>    <NameRef id="tc0">
>    <NameVerbatim>Aus bea Blk., 1965</NameVerbatim>
>    <AccordingTo>Jones, 1975</AccordingTo>
>  </TaxonConcept>
></TaxonConcepts>
>

yes this is more like I imagine Rich but I still have a little problem re your interpretation of nominal concepts - see earlier emails.

>This approach would provide for modularization of full 
>nomenclatural data
>(i.e., restrict to TaxonConcept type="Nominal"), while simultaneously
>forcing all name-only data sources to conform to a Nominal 
>Concept (i.e., no
>confusion about plugging into a name directly, vs. plugging 
>into a concept).
>It would also simultaneously disentangle "Name" relationships 
>from "Concept"
>relationships (the former would be available only in 
>TaxonConcept instances
>of Type "Nominal").
but we can't specify htat in the schema as far as I know....

> Note the "NameVerbatim" element to capture 
>orthographic
>variants that do not rise to the level of a "different name" 
>(sensu both
>Botany & Zoology). It's open to discussion whether this would include
>nomenclatural authorship, but the point is it alleviates the 
>need to create
>a Nominal Concept for every single orthographic variant.
>
hmmm not sure that's a good idea - I think Taxon Concept authors want their original orthography captured - and probably returned. so if someone asked for the name of all concepts they would expect the original orthography returned - no?
If this way would users have to know that there were different names in the Concpet and they would have to decide which name to request - could get confusing?

>
>> Will there ever be any reasons why tools that process TCS 
>data would be
>> better served by the more normalised form?  Here I am less sure.
>> Do we have any use cases that would drive us that way?
>
>What about the day when Universal Taxon Name registration is 
>implemented?
>Following from Roger's point about considering where we might 
>be and what we
>might need ten years from now (perhaps sooner?), we shouldn't 
>ignore the
>value of ID references to name objects as an integral part of 
>the schema.

regarding Universal Taxon Name registration - wouldn't one epxect that if we went that way then we would expect with each new name a good description of the meaning of that name ;-) In which case I'd say it was Universal Taxon Registration (i.e. original concpets that would be getting registered)

sorry to sound like a broken record .........

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. 



More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list