[tcs-lc] Names as Objects

[Richard Pyle]

Many thanks, Greg, for that very helpful post.

> We are in need of a global solution to the
> problem of  (apparently) meaningless application of names within
> biodiversity datasets.

I agree we need a global solution (and soon), and that the historical
practice of using names without specifying concept circumsctiprions is a
real problem that needs to be addressed on a global scale. But I am not
entirely convinced that the application of only names (not concepts) to
datasets renders them necessarily "meaningless"; even apparently so.
Assuming some level of competence on the part of the identifer, we can
reasonably assign it to at least a "Nominal" concept.  And a Nominal concept
can be reliably interpreted as something considerably more restrictive than
"might be any taxon on Earth".  The extent of "meaning" depends on how much
variation exists among historical concepts that the name has been applied
to.  In some cases, it is a lot.  In other cases, it may be hardly any at
all.  The scope of variability (="fuzziness") can be reduced further by
scrutinizing the chronology of the usage in the context of historical
application of concepts. These are all things that I believe a schema like
TCS can help us quantify and sort out -- which is why I'm sacrificing a lot
of sleep to keep beating (probably over-beating) the drums.

Other than this (perhaps trivial and districting) nit-pick, I agree with
absolutely everything else in your note.

Aloha,
Rich