[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

[Richard Pyle]

Is it "authographic", or "orthographic" (I'm not really sure I know the
definition of either term, as I only really learned them in the context of
LC).

> I go for C. - Different letters or same letters in a different order are
> a different name.  But... and this is important. The fact that something
> is an authographic variant of another name is a matter of opinion.

Not really.  There are Code rules that determine these things.  There are
some (old) cases where one could argue it either way, but for the most part,
it's almost always unambiguous whether a variant string of characters
represents a new "Name" (new basionym/protonym), or an orthographic variant
of a previously existing name.

[Just read Paul's response, and see he has similar sentiments.]

> Maybe I should say that clearer. I am not proposing that these things be
> thought of as nomenclatural Names (with a capital) but we do need to
> have them as some sort of object so that we can say "This is an
> authographic variant of that".
>
> So every combination of letters is a name but only some of them are
> Names if that makes sense.

While I certainly agree that variants need to be recorded in some way, I
don't think they need to be treated as "objects" with their own properties.
A "Name" (capital-N) has a whole bunch of properties (authorship, date of
publication, gender, word-form, etc., etc.).  A variant spelling
automatically inherits all of these properties from its corresponding name
object, but the only real "property" it has is a list of
publications/sources that incorprated that particular variant (I see no real
need to single-out the first publication/source to use the variant).

So, I see the myriad of potential misspellings, typographical errors, and
other orthographic variants as something that can be captured in a
"NameVerbatim" or "NameApplied" element attached to the Usage instance
(e.g., in a TCS concept record).  Basically, just a bunch of text-strings
that can be associated (anchored) to the single "Code-corrected" Name
object.

Just read Paul's second response:

> OK Roger, point taken. However, they should be tracked as part of a
> name concept objects schema even if the concept is a null concept
> ('fraid my knowledge of schemas puts me on thin ice here) rather
> than as part of some Name object schema. Thus 'this [TCS] name is
> an orthographic variant of this [LC] Name' - if my terminology is clear.

Basically, yes -- that's what I was also saying: TCS/NameVerbatim is an
orthographic variant of the references LC "Code-corrected" name-object.

Rich