[Tcs-lc] [tcs-lc] Re: name and concept <sigh>

[Richard Pyle]

> It would look like:
>
> <TaxonConcepts>
>   <TaxonConcept id="TC1" type="nomenclatural">
>     <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICBN">
>       <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
>     </Name>
>     <Relationships>
>       <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
>         <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
>       </Relationship>
>       <Relationship type="is congruent to">
>         <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC0"/>
>       </Relationship>
>     </Relationships>
>   </TaxonConcept>
>   <TaxonConcept id="TC2" type="nomenclatural">
>     <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICZN">
>       <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
>     </Name>
>     <Relationships>
>       <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
>         <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
>       </Relationship>
>       <Relationship type="is congruent to">
>         <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC0"/>
>       </Relationship>
>     </Relationships>
>   </TaxonConcept>
>   <TaxonConcept id="TC0" type="original">
>     <Name type="scientific">
>       <NameSimple/>
>     </Name>
>     <SpecimenCircumscription>
>       <CircumscribedBy ref="someSpecimenID" type="holotype"/>
>       <CircumscribedBy ref="anotherSpecimenID"/>
>     </SpecimenCircumscription>
>     <CharacterCircumscription/>
>   </TaxonConcept>
> </TaxonConcepts>


That's actually a LOT closer to what I have been advocating (except
replacing type="nomenclatural" with type="nominal").  What I sent in my last
email was my best attempt to emulate TCS v095.

The only problem I see with what you have above is that TC0 has no
connection with either TC1 or TC2, except from within TC1 & TC2
relationships.

If by type="nomenclatural", you mean the same things as what TCS has defined
as type="nominal", then I do not think it is correct to have:

<Relationship type="is congruent to">
  <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC0"/>
</Relationship>

for either TC1 or TC2 -- because "Nominal" concepts cannot be "congruent" to
any other concepts (as I understand the function of a TCS Nominal-type
TaxonConcept).  A Nominal TaxonConcept, as I understand it, roughly
translates to "the sum of all concept circumscriptions" for which the name
may apply (i.e., something to the effect of: "We don't know what taxon
concept circumscription was intended, but we suspect strongly that it was
from among the total scope of organisms to which this name has ever been
applied").

In my scheme, I would allow only name-name relationships for Nominal
TaxonConcepts:  "is basyonym of", "is type specimen of", etc.  My whole
point has been to disentangle name-name relationships from
circumscription-circumscription relationships.  And in my mind the most
"elegant" way to do this is to impose the rule/standard/whatever that
Relationships within Nominal-type TaxonConcepts are strictly name-name
relationships, whereas Relationships within non-Nominal TaxonConcepts would
be strictly circumscription-circumscription relationships.

> Single name literal, two name usages (one ICZN, one ICBN), three
> TaxonConcepts, one origial and to nomenclatural.
> CharacterCircumscription may be filled by something.
> What will happen on genus Ambiregnalus?

[...]

> Is it right to apply congruence between a nominal TaxonConcept
> and a TaxonConcept with definition elements?

I don't think so.  In my mind, at least, "congruent to" refers to a taxon
concept circumscription, and I do not beleive that Nominal-type
TaxonConcepts can have such a relationship with other TaxonConcepts.

The complete dataset, in my mind, would look something more like this
(including your genera TC records):

<TaxonConcepts>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC1" type="nominal">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICBN" rank="species">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is type species of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC11"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="has original genus">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC11"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC2" type="nominal">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICZN" rank="species">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus namus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is type species of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC12"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="has original genus">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC12"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC3" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" id="TC1"/>
    <Relationship type="is congruent to">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC4"/>
    </Relationship>
    <Relationship type="is included in">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC11"/>
    </Relationship>
    <SpecimenCircumscription>
      <CircumscribedBy ref="someSpecimenID" type="holotype"/>
      <CircumscribedBy ref="anotherSpecimenID"/>
    </SpecimenCircumscription>
    <CharacterCircumscription/>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC4" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" id="TC2"/>
    <Relationship type="is congruent to">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC3"/>
    </Relationship>
    <Relationship type="is included in">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC12"/>
    </Relationship>
    <SpecimenCircumscription>
      <CircumscribedBy ref="someSpecimenID" type="holotype"/>
      <CircumscribedBy ref="anotherSpecimenID"/>
    </SpecimenCircumscription>
    <CharacterCircumscription/>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC11" type="nominal">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICBN" rank="genus">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC12"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is typified by">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is original genus of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC12" type="nominal">
    <Name type="scientific" nomencode="ICZN" rank="genus">
      <NameSimple>Ambiregnalus</NameSimple>
    </Name>
    <Relationships>
      <Relationship type="is ambiregnal of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC11"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is typified by">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
      </Relationship>
      <Relationship type="is original genus of">
        <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
      </Relationship>
    </Relationships>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC13" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" id="TC11"/>
    <Relationship type="is congruent to">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC12"/>
    </Relationship>
    <Relationship type="includes">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC1"/>
    </Relationship>
    <CharacterCircumscription/>
  </TaxonConcept>
  <TaxonConcept id="TC14" type="original">
    <Name type="scientific" id="TC12"/>
    <Relationship type="is congruent to">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC13"/>
    </Relationship>
    <Relationship type="includes">
      <ToTaxonConcept ref="TC2"/>
    </Relationship>
    <CharacterCircumscription/>
  </TaxonConcept>
</TaxonConcepts>

I've taken the additional step of treating "Rank" as an attribute, instead
of an element.  I'm not sure if this is smart or not. I'm also not
comfortable with "is parent of", "is child of", for reasons that have
already been articulated on this list (I think by Gregor).

The above is highly abridged from what a "real" dataset would look like.  I
hope to generate a more fleshed-out version with real data soon.

Aloha,
Rich