[tcs-lc] Names as Objects

[Gregor Hagedorn]

> Gregor also wrote:
> > I fully agree with Rich and James conjecture to define name
> > objects at the root level and make them referrable by ID.

all right, I take that back, so we don't agree.
 
> > To me most importantly, this solves my problem with SDD, that people may want to
> > use SDD (and closely related, online monograph standards like TaXMLit, TaxonX)
> > to CREATE taxon circumscription concepts, rather than referring to them. They
> > need, however, refer to a taxon name (and the nomenclatural information about 
> > publication and status) choosen for the new concept. 

Rich wrote:
> Why can't they achieve this by creating a new concept instance, and from
> within that instance refer back to a Nominal concept instance to represent
> the name data?

Even I - having followed of this discussion - don't understand how that would 
look. If I publish an xml document that contains the new monograph for a genus -
 how do I represent the names for which I provide keys and descriptions in that 
document? 

I believe, to allow some diversity in biodiversity research :-), it is 
desirable not to embed everything in TCS. I would like to have the Fauna/Flora 
xml creation, or perhaps separately xml text markup standards. How, in the 
context of this standard, assuming it is not TCS, do I express a simple name 
like Sally's "Poa acroleuca var. ryukyuensis H.Koba & T.Tateoka"? This my 
question. 

Importantly, the issue is not simply about linking to an existing taxon-
concepts database and put the id into the new document. If the online-monograph 
creates a new concept, at least the nominal concept may be in a name service 
(most likely it is not databased yet, however). But if the name is new as well, 
it can not possibly be there. 

The author of that monograph, although creating well defined taxon character 
circumscription concepts, may not be very well educated on how to use a TCS 
application, she or he may not desire to do so and may not desire to understand 
the distinction between nominal, Original, Revision, Incomplete, Aggregate 
concepts.

I have personal doubts about the TCS concepts types because I fail to 
understand the definitions given in the TCS documentation. These seem to not 
speak my language. However, I believe it is important to have such mechanisms, 
for those expressing concept knowledge. I just try to argue for lowering the 
entry level for the kind of data that are currently being produced. I do not 
believe that the theory is far enough progressed to make it a prerequisite for 
delivering any biodiversity data.

Gregor----------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
Königin-Luise-Str. 19           Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203