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

[Bob Morris]

I don't think I follow the arguments here, but my naive head is breaking 
over the discussion when understood in naive terms. I _thought_ it was 
ok to understand that if two uses of a name circumscribed two different 
sets of organisms then the name  belongs to two different concepts, and 
I _thought_ that there is no single organism that can be assigned to a 
class named by both ICZN and ICBN (which I understand to mean there is 
no such thing as something that is both a plant and an animal). When I 
put these things together I can only make sense of this case being two 
concepts. So I really don't understand why there is an issue here.

[All of this seems independent of the question of attribute vs. element. 
For an xs:string that question is entirely a matter of taste. As a 
software engineer, my taste is usually to have similar things being 
treated similarly. That would argue for leaving NameSimple as an 
element, even though it is very simple compared to ScientificName. If 
you don't believe that NameSimple and ScientificName are closely 
related, then you might argue on some other grounds that an attribute is 
preferable.]

Richard Pyle wrote:
>>>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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcs-lc mailing list
> tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc

-- 
Robert A. Morris
Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
phone (+1)617 287 6466