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

[Richard Pyle]

> > Yes, but this can be accomodated in the urrent TCS as two
> concept instances
> > (one for each Code-name), each having "is congruent to" definitive
> > relationship to each other.
>
> I know it, but the expression (two concept for each code-name) confuses
> this non-Western, non-native.

Two concepts, two names.  One concept links to the ICZN name, the other
concept links to the ICBN name.

> > The alternative is to break the 1:1
> > Concept:Name design limitation of TCS -- which may be worth
> considering for
> > other reasons as well.
>
> I suspect simply renaming TaxonCocnetp to other is sufficient.

But no matter what you call it, it currently allows only one name per
Concept instance.  If we want one concept instance with more than one name,
then the basic structure must be changed.

> > Agreed, but without breaking the 1:1 Concept:Name design of
> TCS, they can be
> > accomodated in the schema as one name literal, two concepts, two name
> > objects.
>
> Then, how many concepts are there, with one definition?
> It confuses this non-Western, non-native again...

To you and me an any taxonomist, there is one concept.  But, if the Name
exists as two names with same name-literal (one name for ICZN, one name for
ICBN), then there is no way in TCS to attach two names to one concept.
Thus, TCS would have two concept instances, each congruent to the other, one
bearing the ICZN name, and one bearing the ICBN name.

Rich