No subject
Tue Mar 22 16:43:40 PST 2005
object<BR>
when it contains a specific unique combination of one-to-three<BR>
Protonyms,<BR>
candidates 1-6, plus 9 and 11 would be considered separate =
"Names", with<BR>
the<BR>
others (7, 8, 10, 12) treated as orthographic variants (stored in =
the<BR>
"AppliedName" element in the context of a Concept/usage =
of my proposed<BR>
Nominal-Concept-based version of the schema).<BR>
<BR>
Finally, from the perspective of TCS, I gather all 12 of these<BR>
candidates<BR>
would be considered separate "Names" in the sense that each =
one would be<BR>
represented by a separate Original Concept (and corresponding =
Nominal<BR>
Concept). Correct?<BR>
<BR>
So, in summary, we have at least four ways to define what constitutes =
a<BR>
distinct "Name" entity/object:<BR>
<BR>
A. Name=3DProtonym<BR>
(Zoological perspective; 4 distinct "Names" represented, the =
others<BR>
representing alternative usage contexts and spelling variations).<BR>
<BR>
B. Name=3DGenusProtonym+TerminalEpithetProtonym combination<BR>
(Botanical perspective(?); 6 distinct "Names" represented, the =
others<BR>
representing alternative usage contexts and orthographic =
variations).<BR>
<BR>
C. Name=3DUnique Set of One-to-Three Protonyms<BR>
(Botanical perspective(?); 8 distinct "Names" represented, the =
others<BR>
representing alternative orthographic variations).<BR>
<BR>
D. Name=3DCharacter string [as appears in association with a concept<BR>
definition]<BR>
(TCS perspective; 12 distinct "Names" represented).<BR>
<BR>
If I'm not mistaken, I think that option "D" would also =
consider the<BR>
following 4 examples to be additional distinct Names, each with =
their<BR>
own<BR>
Original Concept:<BR>
<BR>
13) Aus (Xus) aus L.<BR>
14) Aus (Xus) bea Archer<BR>
15) Aus (Xus) beus Archer<BR>
16) Aus (Xus) aus L. beus Archer<BR>
<BR>
Correct?<BR>
<BR>
My first choice would be to go with option "A", and my second =
choice<BR>
would<BR>
be to go with option "C". My reasons are not based on =
Codes of<BR>
Nomenclature, but rather on consistency of logic and normalization, =
and<BR>
heavier reliance on intra-dataset cross-referencing, assuming we end =
up<BR>
with<BR>
some sort of "Names as Objects" implementation (either as =
top-level<BR>
objects,<BR>
or anchored to Nominal Concept objects, or anchored to Original =
Concept<BR>
objects).<BR>
<BR>
Am I the only one who feels that settling down on (agreeing to) a =
single<BR>
answer to this question (What constitutes a unique "Name"?) is =
of<BR>
critical<BR>
importance for the design and implementation of the TCS/LC schema?<BR>
<BR>
Aloha,<BR>
Rich<BR>
<BR>
Richard L. Pyle, PhD<BR>
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences<BR>
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum<BR>
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817<BR>
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252<BR>
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html">http://w=
ww.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
tcs-lc mailing list<BR>
tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc">http://www=
.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C529FD.C231CB7F--
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list