[Tcs-lc] name and concept <sigh>

[Nozomi Ytow]

> > How about "designate" for nominal-substantial relationship?
> How do you mean the word "Designate"?

Point to, mean, etc.


> Actually, that's exactly what I was going to propose:  that there be only
> two types of TaxonConcepts:  "Nominal", and some word to designate
> non-Nominal (e.g., "Defined", "Circumsription", or some such thing).

> The fundamental difference to me
> between a Nominal TaxonConcept and a non-Nominal TaxonConcept (e.g. Original
> TaxonConcept) is that the former is AccordingTo "nobody", and the latter is
> AccordingTo "somebody".  The more complete version of the sample dataset
> (with AccordingTos) is below.

I interprete these two parts of paragraphs as your nominal
TaxonConcept is name-literal in my terminology, or may be
nomen nudum, rather than a taxon concept.  Does it sound
right? 


> 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?

> No -- to me, there is no such thing as "Nominal TaxonConcept1 is congurent
> to Nominal TaxonConcept2".  I believe the relationship types "is congruent
> to", "is included in", "includes", "overlaps with" and "excludes" have no
> real meaning for Nominal TaxonConcepts.

I meant such as ambiregnal, equivalent and homotypic for nominal pair.
I might misunderstand 'such a relationship'.


> the difference between TC1/TC2 and TC3/TC4 is that the former two
> represent only the name, and the latter two represent the taxon
> circumscription as defined in the original definition of the concept

I understand, so TC1/TC2 shouldn't have relationships to TC3/TC4.
I'm not confident that relationsihps with higher rank name literal
are purely nominal in sense of name literal, although relationships
between TC1/TC2 and TC11/TC12 are nomenclatural.  Do you extend
similer relationships to TC21/TC22, i.e. families and higher?
It will spoil an advantage of Linnean system which minimise
classification in name literals.


<TaxonConcepts>
snip
</TaxonConcepts>

Now you include author part of name literal in NameSimple...


JMS