[tcs-lc] Let's not bother with the codes any more :)

[Richard Pyle]

Roger wrote:

> The fact that we appear to have over looked this (I may be wrong but I
> can't see the mechanism in the TCS and I haven't had a chance to check
> your schema thoroughly Rich I am afraid) worries me.

Don't be afraid... :-)

In my version (3), all non-Nominal Concept instances that apply a scientific
name would have an element to record the verbatim text string of the name as
used in the "AccordingTo" source, and optionally a reference link to the
corresponding Nominal Concept instance for the applied name (only optional
at this point so as not to force all data providers to flesh out more
detailed name information).  The way I have it, no
detailed/parsed/cannonical nomenclatural data would accompany non-Nominal
Concept instances. If such information (beyond the verbatim name-string) is
desired for a non-Nominal Concept instance, it must be acquired via the
(internal or external) link to the corresponding Nominal Concept instance.

The referenced Nominal Concept instance would then have within it links back
to the appropriate Original Concept (as well as links to other non-Nominal
Concept instances that involve nomenclatually imprtant acts).

Thus, whereas I think the Nominal Concept was originally introduced as
simply a way to accomodate name-only primary data in a concept-oriented
framework; what I advocate is elevating the status of the Nominal Concept to
a core, fundamental role within TCS -- as bearer of parsed nomenclaturally
important information, and as the nomenclatural "hub" around which
non-Nominal Concept instances are connected. In other words, as the de-facto
"name object".

Aloha,
Rich