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

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Nico,

> (2) I assume we pretty much have a consensus on going from "Kingdom" to
> "RelevantCode" (something to that extent); after all in that TCS field
> we're not modeling how many "Kingdoms" bacteriologists currently
> perceive to exist. Can anyone please point me/us to the relevant
> point/counter-point for "Rank?" That one I feel less assured about.

Point: Rank is a function of a scientific name, and therefore probably
belongs at least within the "Name" element.

Counterpoint: On the other hand, it is also useful for software
interpretations of concept hierarchies (e.g., validating that a species
cannot be the parent of a genus).

I'm not sure which of these is stronger.  My gut tells me the "Point" wins
over the "Counterpoint" in the long run -- but I haven't thought it through
all the way.

Perhaps you could explain why it was placed in the TaxonConcept root, rather
than within Name, when it is clearly an attribute of a Name, and less-so of
a concept?

Also, on the Kingdom/Code thing, is the consensus you mention only about
what to call the element?  Or is it also about where to place the element?
Again, it seems to me that it should be encapsulated within <Name>
(actually, within <ScientificName>); not within the root of TaxonConcept.

> (3) and (4) seem muddled. Your average practitioner will think of
> herself as "describing taxa" but looking at the picture closely has made
> us to think of that phrase as "describing what she currently perceives
> to be an adequate relationship of her language use to some entity out
> there (typically including some actual specimens)." So there's a name,
> and then hopefully a natural entity (taxon), and what we're modeling is
> how she nailed down the connection among the two (that's the concept)
> and then also how others faired at that task.

I mostly agree with this, but I'm a little uneasy about the words "natural"
and "faired".  Are these connected? For example, is the assumption that
there is a "correct" circumscription "out there", and that there is some
assessment about how each author faired at nailing down that natural entity
"correctly"?  I'm assuming this is not what you meant, but I just wanted to
be sure.

> Abandoning the
> name/concept/taxon three-way of thinking would set us back I think.

Can you elaborate on this three-way of thinking?  I see it as two-way
thinking (name/concept). The idea of "taxon" is a fuzzy blend of these two,
in my mind. That's why I would think that "Taxa/Taxon" is more appropriate
if you intend to blend Name data and Concept data within the same container
element.

Rich