[tcs-lc] relationships between vernacular names

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Roger,

So if I understand your XML example correcly, vernacular names do not exist
as "NameObjects" (evidenced by ref="LSID:1234:ssdf" for Prunus avium, with
no ref for the non-scientific names).  In other words, vernacular names are
treated as existing only as properties of concepts; not as objects unto
themselves.

Correct?

If so, then I am in full, complete, 100% AGREEMENT!!!

...break out the champagne!  :-)

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
> [mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:40 AM
> To: Nozomi Ytow
> Cc: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] relationships between vernacular names
>
>
> Hi James,
>
> I have marked up an example of vernacular cherry names here:
>
> http://biodiv.hyam.net/schemas/TCS_0.95.2/cherries_01.xml
>
> and linked to it from the LC wiki here:
>
> http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCoreExampleNames
>
> I have taken a simplistic approach and may have missed your point but I
> believe this is how we would want to represent vernacular concepts.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> Nozomi Ytow wrote:
>
> >Roger,
> >
> >how can I represent relationships between vernacular names in TCS?
> >We have five UTF-8 strings to represent cherry in Japanese, whatever
> >its scientific name is.  I'd like to represent equivalence between
> >them without referring to scientific names.  Using
> >"is vernacular of"/"has vernacular" here seems an abuse.
> >
> >If we add a type to enumeration to represent relationships between
> >vernacular names, then how the above relationship should be
> >represented?  We store the relatioship by triplet of
> >RelationshipAssertionID, TaxonConceptID, and a boolean-ish whether
> >the TaxonConceptID is FromTaxonCocnept or not; type of
> >RelationsihpAssertion and AccordingTo is stored in
> >RelationshipAssertion data object having the RelationshipAssertionID
> >(in temrs are TCS equvalent, of course). In above cherry case, it
> >would be recorded as equivalent to
> >
> >(vernacular-equivalence, cherry_in_half-width-Katakana, isFrom)
> >(vernacular-equivalence, cherry_in_full-width-Katakana, isFrom)
> >(vernacular-equivalence, cherry_in_Hiragana, isFrom)
> >(vernacular-equivalence, cherry_in_ShimplifiedKanji, isFrom)
> >(vernacular-equivalence, cherry_in_OriginalKanji, isFrom)
> >
> >where the second element is ID of TaxonConcept retaining these
> >reprsentaitons of cherry.  Do I need to create five or ten
> >(combination of these fives) RelationsihpAssertions to represent
> >it (and hence GUID for each of them)?  I think it is better to allow
> >RelationsihpAssertion to have more than one FromTaconCocnept and
> >ToTaxonCocnept.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >JMS
> >--
> >Dr. Nozomi "James" Ytow
> >Institute of Biological Sciences / Gene research center
> >University of Tsukuba
> >Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572
> >Japan
> >_______________________________________________
> >Tcs-lc mailing list
> >Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> >http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> ==============================================
>  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
> ==============================================
>
>
>