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

[Richard Pyle]

> Now you are probably saying but we have the codes which control
> what's an allowable name - so are we only going to pass code
> validated names and anything else is untransferable?

No -- and this is why the domain of name-objects (in my mind) should not be
limited to "Code-Compliant" [available/validly published] names; but rather
to the broader scope of "Names intended to be in accordance with the
Linnaean system of taxonomic nomenclature" (which includes many
scientific-like names that violate or fail to fully comply with the relevant
codes of nomenclature).

>I am just trying to come at this from some other angles here.
>
> > we were too when we started out on TCS....hope you're more
> > successful which if you focus on one particular user group
> > I'm sure you will be.

The relevance of the Codes and of rules related to scientific nomenclature
are not confined to "one particular user group" -- they are fundamental to
all of taxonomy (indeed, all of biology).  That this is not more
self-evident within the biological community as a whole is one of the more
significant failures in science.

I don't believe that the rules of nomenclature should somehow be encoded
within TCS.  However, I think that scientific names -- and the codes and
rules that govern them -- are fundamental enough that they warrant serious
consideration for the structure of an international taxonomic data exchange
schema.

What I have proposed does not, as far as I can tell, impact any other user
group of TCS. Maybe I'm blind to the impacts, in which case I would
appreciate the help of someone to open my eyes (with specific examples).

Aloha,
Rich