[tcs-lc] Names as Objects

[Gregor Hagedorn]

Gregor:
> > 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? 
Jessie:
> you would just enter the name in the name element - if it were a completely new
> name then nothing else, if you were syaing the name was a nov.comb or whatever
> you would enter a relationship to the original concept that is was nov/comb of.

Perhaps we almost agree. For the purpose you mention above, I would need an 
object type (name object or TCS Nominal type) that allows, in the context of 
SDD, TaXMLit, TaxonX to express the name data. That is what I look at 
LinneanCore for.

I dislike the TCS with type="nominal" approach, because thus I can not separate 
issues. There is no way in w3c schema to ONLY use TCS with type attribute 
having value = "nominal". You MUST use the entire type and since that the is a 
complex type containing most TCS types (or containing elements that depend on 
TCS literature and voucher) almost the entire TCS schema.

The problem with SDD needing Ids on these objects could perhaps be addressed by 
redesigning SDD. Currently, an SDD description is held together by which person 
or team authored it. As a consequence, in collaborations, multiple descriptions 
refer to the same name. SDD therefore uses IDs to relate these to a single 
name. THis could be redesigned by putting all information within a name, but 
the current design is based on the assumption that descriptions will be 
federated and provided from different data providers around the world. In a 
federated environment, one needs machine reasoning about whether the same name 
object is used or not.

> >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. 
> 
> ?why?

You cannot have a new publication already indexed in a database that indexes 
already published publications. Putting it first in the indexing database would 
be illegal under the nomenclatural codes, since then the name would first have 
been invalidly published.

> Thing is I believe you don't want to pass all of this nomenclatural informaitn
> around with your names either Gregor, you just want the code validated name -
> not the reasons why it is valid etc. - am I correct? I think this is what Walter
> wants too for ABCD. So I think he was hoping for a "simple type" to replace in
> ABDC - even though I think he should have a concept reference in there (even if
> it is a nominal one)
 
Almost, but not quite. For SDD proper only a structured name with an optional 
pointer to a nomenclatural service like Index Fungorum is needed. For the 
online monograph scenario (which will be the real use of SDD) also information 
about the nomenclatural and synonymy will become tied in. 

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