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

[Bob Morris]

In the case A) could someone please give me an example of "let the 
questioner work out which was the record they want" when the questioner 
is a software agent and not a person? If there is such an example, does 
making A) meaningful require additional specification so that two agents 
would always make the same decision? Is it problematic if they don't?

Case D), or anything else with transient discovery mechanisms, makes 
caching problematic. The resolver of the discovery mechanism has to 
offer the same time-to-live guarantees as the data provider, which 
probably only works if the resolver and provider have the same 
administration or at least if the resolver and all providers agree on 
expiration date policies---an unlikely scenario.

So, blissfully ignorant of any of the scientific impact of A-E, and 
assuming that the English meaning of each of them is as it seems, I 
would say C) seems to be the most congenial to software systems.

Bob Morris


Sally Hinchcliffe wrote:
> ...
> So my question to the group (assuming anyone's got this far) is 
> which is better?
> 
> A) To return three linked TCS records for every (unambiguous) 
> trinomial, and let the questioner work out which was the record 
> they want
> B) to return a single TCS record with an ambiguous trinomial (i.e. 
> no genus or specific epithet ids included)
> C) to return a single TCS record with externally referenced Genus 
> and specific epithet ids in the LC element, which the questioner 
> can follow up if they want to
> D) to return a single TCS record with three LC records using 
> transient ids for the Genus and specific epithet ids
> E) ?Not sure if Rich's suggested structure would help here but if it 
> could, it's a fifth option
> 
> 

-- 
Robert A. Morris
Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
phone (+1)617 287 6466