[tcs-lc] name and concept <sigh>

[Richard Pyle]

> (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,

Agreed -- sorry again for the sloppy wording.

> 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...

No easier for natives!  I think I understand your point here, and I am
probably the source of miscommunication.

Maybe it's time to try again to establish clear(er) definitions of terms,
like we tried to do here:
http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreDefinitions

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand.  Maybe we can communicate more effectively via
XML?

<TaxonConcepts>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC1" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICBN">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC2" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICZN">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
</TaxonConcepts>

Two names (one ICZN, one ICBN).  Two TaxonConcepts.

This example (attempts to) follow v095 of TCS.  I would prefer to do things
somewhat differently, which more clearly establishes the two "names" as
different objects, moreso than simply looking at the different nomencode
attribute.

Rich