[tcs-lc] Modularisation of standards

[Richard Pyle]

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

Agreed -- that's the bit we still need to work out.  There is no question
that what I am proposing requires a re-definition of "Nominal" concept.  The
ase I hope to make is that doing so will provide TCS with all it needed for
its intended use on Nominal COncept, but also enrich it as the package for
nomenclatural information.

> but we can't specify htat in the schema as far as I know....

Maybe not -- but a lot of the schema already relies on the user providing
non-bogus content.

> hmmm not sure that's a good idea - I think Taxon Concept authors
> want their original orthography captured - and probably returned.

Hence my suggestion of a NameVerbatim element for each non-Nominal concept.

> so if someone asked for the name of all concepts they would
> expect the original orthography returned - no?

Both would be availble; literal as used within the concept definition via
NameVerbatim, and orthographically "correct" via the link to the
corresponding NominalConcept.

> 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?

Not sure I understand the question.

> >> 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 ;-)

Don't forget the legacy names -- they will require registration numbers as
well. But that's not relevant to the discussion here.

> In which case
> I'd say it was Universal Taxon Registration (i.e. original
> concpets that would be getting registered)

Both would be -- but the point is that a name object has NO concept
circumscription beyond the primary type.  An Original description provides a
defined concept circumsription IN ADDITION TO creating a new name.  Separate
acts, related only by the primary type specimen.

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

Likewise!

Rich