[tcs-lc] where to go now..

[Sally Hinchcliffe]

Hi all

> > Could you just take the part of the LC that covers CanonicalName,
> > CanonicalAuthorship and the Label and drop it into the place where
> > the ABCD name element was in TCS?
Rich wrote:
 
> I think this is a sensible approach. However, there are a few basic issues
> that remain in my mind:
> 
> 1) Somewhere, on some wiki, it seemed like most people agreed that "Kingdom"
> could/would be replaced by "NomenclaturalCode" (or whatever makes sense to
> call it).  True?  If so, it is probably something that does not belong as a
> root TaxonConcept element, but rather belongs somewhere within the "Name"
> element (indeed, somewhere specifically within "ScientificName").
>
I agree ... 
> 2) Similarly, I think "Rank" is also a function of a Name, rather than of a
> concept, and probably belongs within "Name" or even "ScientificName".
> 
Also agree ...
> 3) What is the difference between the "Label" element of LC, and the
> "NameSimple" element of TCS?

Don't know 
> > The rest of LC is optional
> > anyway and afaik those bits of LC are now fairly well agreed?
> 
> Agreed.
> 
There are also Roger's comments from the document that kicked 
this whole discussion off. As I remember, some of these were 
uncontroversial - setting up a 'text' (or label?) alternative 
consistently in each element, possibly adding verbatim elements 
consistently, using UBIF metadata in the main schema (I've used 
this for IPNI & I think it's pretty neat and powerful) & having a 
clearer and consistently used naming convention for things like 
simple / atomised / text elements.

Sally

*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk