[tcs-lc] name and concept <sigh>

[Nozomi Ytow]

(I changed subject, since it is irelevant to XML attribute vs element)

> However, TCS in its current form (as I understand it) does not accomodate
> more than one name per concept, so the only way to handle this situation is
> to establish two original concepts, defined as congruent with each other,

Incorrect, or misleading.  I would rephrase it as:

However, TCS in its current form (as I understand it) does not accomodate
more than one name per TaxonConcept, so the only way to handle this situation is
to establish two original TaxonConcepts, defined as congruent with each other,

Note that TaxonConcept does not mean concept in your context.  Only
concept definition part of TaxonConcept (circumscriptions,
relationships, and pharhaps AccordingTo) is equivalent to your use of
`concept' here, I understand.  The term TaxonConcept has been the
hardest part of the schema for me, because of `resonance' between word
`concept` and TaxonConcept.  It might be easy for natives...

We can provide two TaxonConcept with each name but without definition
part, and make them to point to another unnamed TaxonConcept with
zero-length name and definition part via Relationships, (or,
ProviderSpecificData?).  In the former case, relationships between two
named TaxonConcepts would be "ambiregnal" (or, "equilvent" to cover
vernacular names also) while it between named and unnamed
TaxonCocnetps would be "congruent".  I understand it as unintended
use, but possible.

Cheers,
JMS