[tcs-lc] Have your cake and eat it?

[Richard Pyle]

> Would be grateful for peoples thoughts.

I'm not sure of the implications of doing away with the Concept "type"
attribute in TCS -- that's a question for Jessie.  But as for your proposal,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Would all propertes of a name
object (which may be spread out over multiple publications -- such as
leptotypification, secondary homonyms, etc., etc.) be incapsulated in one
instance?  Or would they be assumbled from a set of instances (each with
their own AccordingTo)?

Parts of what you describe sound very similar to one of the versions of the
Nominal Concept schema I proposed (not one of the ones I spent a lot of time
following up on).  What I was striving for is a single instance (record)
that would contain all of the relevant elements for a single name GUID
(whatever that ends up applying to, regarding the current conversation).  If
I read you correctly, you would treat all the Name/AccordingTo records the
same as TCS currently does, but flag the subset that contain nomenclatural
acts.  Is that right?  If so, then the properties of a single Name object
(single name GUID instance) may be spread over multiple Concept
(Name/AccordingTo) instances -- which is what I was trying to avoid in teh
first place.

Incidentally, I was also going to propose the "Taxa/Taxon" semantics to
replace the existing "TaxonConcepts/TaxonConcept" in TCS -- but decided not
to primarily because it would be the only violation of the otherwise
consistent pattern (and stated rule) that an instance container is the the
same name as the set container, minus the "s".

Rich