[tcs-lc] nameObjects, spellings, vernaculars, etc

[Richard Pyle]

> I would be sorry to see that so. Developing the name-variant table is
> significant work, and for those name-variants that do not inform about a
> concept (lack any sensu, emend, sec. etc. indication), it would
> be a waste of
> effort to associate them with a concept rather than with a name.

So...if I understand you correctly, you're saying that name variants (sensu
lato) should be treated as properties of Name Objects, rather than as
properties of TaxonConcept (~=usage) instances?  How would you structure
that -- something like:

<VariantSpellings>
  <VariantSpelling>Euonymus europaeus</VariantSpelling>
  <VariantSpelling>Evonymus europaeeus</VariantSpelling>
  <VariantSpelling>Evonymus europaeeus</VariantSpelling>
  <VariantSpelling>Evonymus europaeus</VariantSpelling>
  <VariantSpelling>Euonymus europaeus</VariantSpelling>
  <VariantSpelling>Euonymus europaeeus</VariantSpelling>
  [etc.]
</VariantSpellings>

...within a NameObject instance that has the code-correct name "Evonymus
europaeus"?

Or...would you treat each variant as a separate NameObject (with its own
GUID, and its own set of LC elements for canonicalName, CanonicalAuthorship,
original orthography, etc., etc.)?

In other words, how would you represent this in the schema?

> At the same time, clearly for concepts there are also name variants:
>
> Evonymus europaeus sec. Richard Pyle 2000 (= canonical),
> Euonymus europaeus sec. Richard Pyle 2000,
> Evonymus europaeeus sec. Richard Pyle 2000,
> Euonymus europaeeus sec. Richard Pyle 2000,
> Evonymus europaeus sec. Richard Pyle,
> Euonymus europaeus sec. Richard Pyle,
> Evonymus europaeeus sec. Richard Pyle,
> Euonymus europaeeus sec. Richard Pyle,
> Evonymus europaeus sec. R. Pile,
> Euonymus europaeus sec. R. Pile,
> Evonymus europaeeus sec. R. Pile,
> Euonymus europaeeus sec. R. Pile,
> Evonymus europaeus sec. R. Pyle,
> Euonymus europaeus sec. R. Pyle,
> Evonymus europaeeus sec. R. Pyle,
> Euonymus europaeeus sec. R. Pyle,
> Evonymus europaeus sec. R. P.,
> Euonymus europaeus sec. R. P.,
> Evonymus europaeeus sec. R. P.,
> Euonymus europaeeus sec. R. P.,
>
> I think the name-variant structure should apply to both name objects and
> concept names.

I'm not sure I follow.

In the above list, the variations of "Richard Pyle 2000" are are variations
of the AccordingTo author (post-SEC.).  PLEASE don't tell me that you think
that the schema needs to accomodate every possible way that every author who
has ever cited a taxonomic name in a concept definition has or might be
represented!!

I even have serious problems with designing the schema to accomodate
variations of *name* authorships -- let alone concept authorships.

For the concepts, there should be only one instance for "Evonymus europaeus
sec. Richard Pyle 2000", and the "Evonymus europaeus" part should be spelled
exactly the way Pyle spelled it in his 2000 publication.

If datasets exist out there that record the concept to which they are
mapping biological data as "Evonymus europaeus sec. R.Pyle 2000", that
should *not* be something for TCS to accomodate.  That's a problem at the
dataset side; not the transfer schema side.

Aloha,
Rich