[tcs-lc] Mispelling db response

Mon May 2 15:06:23 PDT 2005

See inter spaced notes.

>>If you were querying a db and requested a wrongly spelled name
>>(you don't know it is wrongly spelled you are just passing a
>>word) would you expect to get back:
>>
>>1) An object for the correctly spelled name - perhaps with the misspelling
>>    
>>
>as a note.
>  
>
>>2) An object for the incorrectly spelled name with a pointer to where to
>>    
>>
>get the correctly spelled object.
>  
>
>>3) Objects for both the correctly and incorrectly spelled names and a link
>>    
>>
>between them.
>
>Here's what I would like:
>
>- The "Code-correct" name in bold, at the top.
>- A list of orthographic variants, non-bold and indented, with the
>particular one I searched for highlighted in some way
>- Little "+" symbols next to each orthographic variant that would lead me to
>a list of publications that spelled the name in each particular way.
>- A separate list of competing subjective "statuses" of the bold name on the
>top line (e.g., ITIS treats it as valid, Bishop Museum treats it as a
>subjective synonym synonym of a different name, etc.)
>- Another list of "unlinked" concepts that nevertheless match the search
>criteria.
>
>The point is, I think alternate spellings should fundamentally "hub" around
>an unambiguous "NameObject", which then is linked to by a series of concepts
>that used any one of a number of orhtographic variants of that name object.
>
>  
>
>>I think this is a matter for the db you are querying to decide not the
>>    
>>
>schema.
>
>Agreed!
>
>  
>
>>Some dbs will be capable of doing some kinds of response others capable of
>>    
>>
>others.
>  
>
>>The schema is just the transport medium for this kind of thing.
>>    
>>
>
>Doubly agreed!
>
>  
>
>>Does this help in clarifying the debate on misspelling of names at all?
>>i.e. which ones of them will be created as objects and which will be notes
>>    
>>
>etc.
>
>I'm not sure, because the debate is about the transfer schema -- not the way
>that user interfaces will present the information.
>  
>

If you read my posting carefully you will see that it isn't about user 
interfaces. It is generic and talks about a request being "passed" 
meaning passed by an agent. I chose these words carefully because I was 
thinking of software 'agents'. You can never assume how a thing will be 
rendered though sometimes it is useful to think of an example 
application. Imagine an indexing agent 'crawling' a data source or a GIS 
application trying to find out more info about a point on a map etc. 
these will also 'pass' a name string to a db and then interpret the 
objects returned. Perhaps I was writing too much from a programmers 
perspective.

>In my experience, the best solution to a data model is the one that most
>closely reflects the "reality" of information.  That statement, of course,
>is of limited value, because one person's "reality" is another person's
>rubbish.
>
>But here's my broader perspective:
>
>1) The Concept part of the TCS schema should be designed to maximally
>accomodate the people who have to deal with datasets that involve
>cross-mapping via defined concept circumsrciptions. I think it currently
>does this well.
>  
>
>2) The detailed "Name" part of the TCS schema should be designed to
>maximally accomodate the needs of the people whose business it is to sort
>out taxonomic names (Nomenclators, Code-Warriors, etc.).  This should be the
>job of LC.
>
>3) I am of growing confidence that these issues we've been debating will NOT
>be sufficiently resolved in time for the next TDWG meeting in St.
>Petersburg.
>4) Because I think it would be a grave mistake to handicap the
>implementation of v1.0 of TCS due to unresolved name issues (the solutions
>to which we don't seem much closer to now than we did some time ago), I
>would propose we consider the following as a bailout plan:
>
>a) Revert back to TCS v0.95.0;
>  
>
>b) Leave the "NameDetailed" part of that version more or less as it is
>(there are still some minor points of dicussion and need for clarification,
>but not of the magnitude of the "NameObjects" debate), and think of it as a
>"placeholder" for a future, more robust "names as objects" schema (LC), to
>be developed separately. In this paradigm, there would be no attempt to
>create GUIDs for name-objects -- only concept-objects.  The existing
>NameDetailed element structure would be viewed simply as a complex parsed
>set of properties of concepts (i.e., the applied name properties) -- and a
>place to put basic nomenclatural information attached to concept
>definitions.
>
>c) Allow the nomenclaturists to develop a stand-alone LC schema, optimized
>for dealing with "Name Objects" as nomenclaturists define them.
>
>d) Eventually, when LC is sorted out and runs through the TDWG standards
>adoption process, v2.0 of TCS could add a "ref" attribute to the "Name"
>element, allowing linking to separate Name Objects via appropriat UIDs --
>and perhaps even dump the "NameDetailed" bit altogether.
>
>I'm not giving up all hope of a "merged" TCS/LC in time for the St.
>Petersburg meeting -- but I do want to see established a "safety net" so as
>not to impede the implementation of a "mostly harmless" version of TCS v1.0.
>  
>

These high level thoughts are all very well but can you give me an 
example of what 0.95.0 does that 0.95.2 does not do? Not a long winded 
description of what it might do but an actual example of a Name/Concept 
marked up in valid 0.95.0 document that can't be marked up in a valid 
0.95.2 document? Or something that can be marked up in the most current 
version of LC but not in 0.95.2?

If you can illustrate your points with solid marked up examples that say 
"I can express X in this schema but not in that schema" then they will 
gain some credibility. This would be very useful and positive 
contribution to moving things forward. Without these things it is 
difficult to see how your comments help us move forward.

All the best,

Roger

>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
>Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum	
>1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
>Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
>email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pylerichard.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 

==============================================
 Roger Hyam
----------------------------------------------
 Biodiversity Informatics
 Independent Web Development 
----------------------------------------------
 http://www.hyam.net  roger at hyam.net
----------------------------------------------
 2 Janefield Rise, Lauder, TD2 6SP, UK.
 T: +44 (0)1578 722782 M: +44 (0)7890 341847
==============================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050502/797699ce/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: roger.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 275 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050502/797699ce/roger.vcf