[tcs-lc] Poa acroleuca var. ryukyuensis H.Koba & T.Tateoka

[Kennedy, Jessie]

Sally wrote:

>What would the TCS schema look like in order to pass the 
>following IPNI record:
>
> Poa acroleuca var. ryukyuensis H.Koba & T.Tateoka
>
>Where the parent of the variety is Poa acroleuca Steud.
>
>and the parent of the species is Poa L.
>
>If we have to handle upward links via the TCS and not via LC?
>

I guess there could be different answers to this question...
the simplest would be to have taxonconcept for the variety and include references to the other realted concepts which we assume can be resolved, if not these would need to be included. I have only filled inthe name simple and AccordingTo simple but hte detailed elements could be filled out.
 

<TaxonConcepts>
		<TaxonConcept id="co1" type="original">
			<Name type="scientific">
				<NameSimple>Poa acroleuca var. ryukyuensis H.Koba & T.Tateoka</NameSimple>
			</Name>
			<AccordingTo>
				<AccordingToSimple>H.Koba & T.Tateoka</AccordingToSimple>
			</AccordingTo>
			<Kingdom>Plant</Kingdom>
			<Rank>variety</Rank>
			<Relationships>
				<Relationship type="is child of">
					<ToTaxonConcept ref="co2"/>
				</Relationship>
			</Relationships>
		</TaxonConcept>
<TaxonConcept id="co2" type="original">
			<Name type="scientific">
				<NameSimple>Poa acroleuca Steud.</NameSimple>
			</Name>
			<AccordingTo>
				<AccordingToSimple>Steud.</AccordingToSimple>
			</AccordingTo>
			<Kingdom>Plant</Kingdom>
			<Rank>variety</Rank>
			<Relationships>
				<Relationship type="is child of">
					<ToTaxonConcept ref="co3"/>
				</Relationship>
			</Relationships>
		</TaxonConcept>
		<TaxonConcept id="co3" type="original">
			<Name type="scientific">
				<NameSimple>Poa L.</NameSimple>
			</Name>
			<AccordingTo>
				<AccordingToSimple>Linnaeus</AccordingToSimple>
			</AccordingTo>
			<Kingdom>Plant</Kingdom>
			<Rank>variety</Rank>
			<Relationships>
				<Relationship type="has child ">
					<ToTaxonConcept ref="co2"/>
				</Relationship>
			</Relationships>
					</TaxonConcept>


ok so this doesn't say much but I guess that's baecause all I've done is represent what you've said without inferring anything....hope this wasn't a trick example ;-)

now whether or not you point up the tree or point down I guess relaly depends on what you were doing or what you're represetning. If I'm representing names coming out of a classification then I'd probably point down but you could equally back traverse these links - or you could define things as having parents rather than having children.

I agree that having GUIDs makes all of this simpler though.....

So not sure I've captured what you meant but if not tell me what's missing......

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.