[tcs-lc] Re: Question about XML attribute vs. element

[Richard Pyle]

> Suppose a protista named Aus bus under both ICBN and ICZN with a
> single description in a single publication.  How should it expressed?

I would treat those cases as two separate name intsances (each governed by
its own Code rules), with a name-name relationship "is ambiregnal of"
connecting the two names.

At the moment, there is an allowance for only one Code per name as it
currently stands.  If you would rather treat ambiregnal as one name instance
with two Codes, then it could be done that way as well.  But I don't think
that is the best way to handle these cases.

> If we allow a single spelling ("Aus bus") to have multiple NomenCode,
> then elements.  Otherwise, either will do.

Ambiregnal names are a mess no matter how you deal with them.  I suppose
leaving NomenCode as an element makes it less painful later to expand to
allow multiple codes for one name.  But I think the ambiregnal really
represent two separate name-objects (two GUIDs), one for each "name" created
in a Code-context.  This is because subsequent usages of the name(s) may
involve different required changes/applied rules depending on what Code is
followed.  In other words, its Zoological "name" and its Botanical "name"
may encounter different Code-regulated fates -- so perhaps best to keep them
as separate (cross-Code homonyms).

> I prefer to put it as a "locale" attribute of NameSimple, rather than
> NameDetailed.

What would an enumerated list of the "locale" attribute look like?

Aloha,
Rich