[tcs-lc] Names as Objects

[Greg Whitbread]

Don't give up Jessie,

Although I must admit  sympathies to the views expressed by Gregor and 
Walter ( Rich even ) I do believe that TCS is very close to providing a 
generic platform  for the interchange of  the kinds of taxon level data 
we are ready to make available now.  With a bit of work  I can almost 
get from  APNI  ( and Sally from IPNI)  to TCS and back again *without* 
loss of information. Are there any known transformational show stoppers 
out there?

On this side of the world the flurry of list activity happens while I am 
asleep and I awake to (try and) read a completed interchange - all I can 
do is nod.  Yes we do need concept schema.  Yes it is perfectly 
reasonable to embed nomenclatural concepts. Yes the generic approach 
taken by TCS seems eminently qualified as a "module" in the greater 
scheme of things.  Bob only knows a few additional XML tags will not be 
noticed - if not required.  Perhaps we could simply change the 
"taxonConcept" element name/concept to "concept"  and use the type 
attribute appropriately.  It is in our best interests to to keep the 
schema  simple,  generic and reusable.

There is a lot at stake here.  Some big picture issues that are much 
greater  than our individual attempts to satisfy any taxonomic (or 
nomenclatural) imperative.  We are in need of a global solution to the 
problem of  (apparently) meaningless application of names within 
biodiversity datasets.  If we want our product to be useful we must 
first provide a framework  for establishing  taxonomic credibility.  We 
need the end users of  our outputs to understand that taxa are our core 
business and that  nomenclatural systems  are our tools for the 
discovery of  relationships.   Relationships that may impact on 
interpretation of  primary sources and on the nature of decisions based 
on associated facts.

We are not designing the "big" concept  schema - yet.  We are trying to 
figure a way of federating concepts, of finding a compromise or an "over 
simplification that works", but at the same time capable of organising 
our efforts to provide authoritative taxonomic opinion in a way that 
reduces wherever possible any duplication of effort.   If we can 
introduce LSIDs (or GUIDs at least) into the mix, TCS and TCS like 
schema definitely have potential here.   We can implement however we 
like - the important thing is that interchange is possible.  

greg

>ok in my terminology - you accepted a definition and a name but not a combination that had ever been used together, i.e. a concept in TCS notation.. So if I wanted to say I had seen some of the thing you meant by this name plus this definition, then I'm effectively referring to your concept in TCS terms where concept means name+definition not just the definition - maybe people have been missing that point but I did try hard to get it across. people use names with an implied definition - that's what I'm calling a concept in TCS. So if the name changes, the concept changes, if any part of the definition changes the concept changes.
>
>  
>
-- 

Australian Centre for Plant BIodiversity Research<------------------+
National            greg whitBread             voice: +61 2 62509 482
Botanic Integrated Botanical Information System  fax: +61 2 62509 599
Gardens                      S........ I.T. happens.. ghw at anbg.gov.au
+----------------------------------------->GPO Box 1777 Canberra 2601