[tcs-lc] You don't need embedded names to do concepts

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Mar 10 14:22:58 PST 2005


> I think your take on a Nominal concept is a good one but I don't
> think it is the same as Jessie's and it may even break her model.

The "concept-meaning" of the Nominal Concept would be the same.  What's
different is where certain nomenclatural elements and links are stored. In
the current TCS, the nomenclatural information is scattered among the
non-nominal Concept instances in which the nomenclatural acts occured. In my
approach, the nomenclaturally important information is gathered up within
the corresponding Nominal Concept instance of each name (you could almost
think of it as caching -- but not quite).

> As far as I understand it under Jessie's schema  you would always
> go back to the Original concept for details of the original
> publication.

The only difference I propose is that you would instead go back to the
Nominal Concept for such details. This would then lead you back to the
Original Concept and any other concepts that involved important
nomenclatural acts.

> The nominal concept is just that - nominal - null - no links
> at all to other data.

As it is now in TCS, yes.  I propose an enrichment of it (without in any way
altering its intended concept-meaning).

> The way I understand your nominal concept is that you want it to
> be just like a name object but with a concept wrapper round it
> and for it to be addressed in the same GUID name space as concepts.
> Is that right?

Not quite. The Nominal Concept would be basically the same as it is in
current TCS, except enriched with nomenclatural details. And, it would be
relied upon more heavily by non-Nominal concepts as the conduit to
nomenclaturally robust information (rather than embedding such nomenclatural
information within structures designed to define the scope of a concept).

Rich





More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list