[Tcs-lc] name and concept <sigh>

[Nozomi Ytow]

> If by type="nomenclatural", you mean the same things as what TCS has defined
> as type="nominal",

Yes, I referred to an older document.  I meant nominal.

> -- because "Nominal" concepts cannot be "congruent" to
> any other concepts (as I understand the function of a TCS Nominal-type
> TaxonConcept). 

How about "designate" for nominal-substantial relationship?


> 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.

It sounds good.  I wonder why don't you introduce two types, i.e. nominal
one and non-nominal one to enforce the rule.


> 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.

Except nominal TaxonConcepts, you mean?


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

It is worse than circumscriptions under TC1 and TC2, I think.
I don't see waht TC3 and TC4 do.  It is also strange that
TC3 is included in TC11, not TC13.  However, it is conformal with TCS,
isn't it?

JMS