[tcs-lc] Names as Objects

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Mar 10 11:55:57 PST 2005


> No, I exactly argue for the the freedom to only use an
> appropriate level of
> name knowledge. I argue for an object that can be re-used in
> online monographs
> to express nomenclatural knowledge. And as argued for SDD
> separately, SDD needs
> an ID on such name objects.

Why can't a TCS Nominal TaxonConcept be that object?  The Metadata element
will presumably be some standard TDWG or UBIF structure. You wouldn't need
to pass any Vouchers (unless you wanted details about type specimens).  You
wouldn't need to pass Publications (unless you wanted more details about
original descriptions & such).  And you certainly wouldn't need to pass
RelationshipAssertions.  Within TaxonConcepts, everything is optional except
for the Name -- which is the only part you'd want.  From your perspective,
it would look pretty-much like a Name object enclosed within a TaxonCocnept
container (which, in my view, would have type="Nominal").

The only thing I'm not sure about is that the Metadata, Vouchers,
Publications, and RelationshipAssertions containers are not optional in TCS
(though their instances are -- except for Creator and CreationTime under
Metadata).  Is there a reason for this?  Would there be some implied failure
if one were to pass a package containing only rudimentary Metadata and
TaxonConcept instances, without any of the other containers?

> At the momement, *no* electronic publication is possible under
> ICBN at all, so
> the scenario is hypothetical. If such publication would become
> possible, an
> explicit exception for indexing databases could be made to avoid flooding
> nomenclature with nomen nudum cases.

I have a hunch that acceptance of electronic forms of Name "Publication" by
ICBN & ICZN will not likely preceed mandatory electronic registration of
names (Protonyms), in which case the problem would be self-solved.

> However, I still think it would become a hindrance to taxonomic
> progress if
> anybody who want to publish a new species in digital form in the
> future would
> first have to go to a concept indexing service, "pre-register"
> the name, then
> use an GUID token obtained from there to insert into the publication that
> actually describes the new taxon, provides the character circumscription,
> ecological, distribution, synonymy and other information.

Well...that seems to me to be a mighty small hinderance compared to the
"hinderance" that already exists to conform to ICBN/ICZN rules for
establishing an available name.  When you consider the amount of time and
work that go into examining specimens, drafting the description manuscript,
submitting it for publication, addressing reviewer's comments, etc., etc. --
spending a couple minutes on a web site pre-registering a name seems pretty
trivial.  For people describing new species in parts of the world where
there is no convenient internet connection, perhaps journal publishers
(electronic or otherwise) would perform the service on behalf of
contributing authors.

Of course, the hinderance would be even more trivial is the right software
tools existed.

> Only part of this information can be captured in current TCS. I
> see TCS, SDD,
> as building blocks in that future big thing, not as the germ to
> grow into it.
> Each of these and others could become everything...

I guess the point of the TCS camp is that concepts and scientific names are
so intimately intertwined, that they should be dealt with together in the
same "subunit" of the "everything" schema.  And I have to say, I am mostly
in agreement with that perspective.  The important thing to me is that TCS
allow for passing "robust" name-only data without a lot of "excess baggage"
(i.e., concept data). Defining Nominal Concept instances as the "bearer" of
LC-level nomenclatural data seems to me to be the most painless and
"elegant" solution.

Aloha
Rich





More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list