[Tcs-lc] type scientific redundant?

[Gregor Hagedorn]

> But then there is no way to clearly distinguish the scientific names from
> the non-scientific ones.  Maybe this isn't a problem, as long as "type" is
> clearly enumerated, and unambiguosly assigned to "scientific" vs.
> "non-scientific" -- which is a fundamental boolean distinction that should
> be unambiguous for all records.

I am not entirely sure about boolean... Did you look at the virus names? They 
are really different, look like vernaculars, and the meaning of "scientific" is 
really different there. Any virus people out there?

> Also, I *really* don't like the idea of the "version" attribute.  Most
> Code-governed names exist in all versions of the relevant Code.  This would mean
> potentially four different name-objects for every zoological name, the vast,
> vast, vast majority of which would have identical orthography.
> 
> Why even bother with the Code version?  Why not handle the rare cases of
> different orthography as orthographic variants?

It is not really orthographic variant, but name under different rules. However, 
I agree that treating them there is an alternative (and so far how I handle 
them!). Perhaps a simple notes field at each name-variant is fine. I wrote the 
above just to explore the thought.

We need to model this perhaps, at the moment I am confused myself how to handle 
the variants in the name-part-without-citation and the whole name-with 
citation. Both are relevant.

Gregor----------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
Königin-Luise-Str. 19           Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203