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

[Sally Hinchcliffe]

Rich

I think we agree with pretty much everything (hurray!). It does seem 
to me that BOTH name-string-things (canonical name and verbatim name) 
belong in the LC part of the schema
The only thing I would ask is whether, with the LC objects pulled out 
of the body of the TCS element, the TCS still needs a placeholder 
string with the _canonical_ name just for readability.

Rich - yes, I mean scientific-name-as-spelled-by-the-author not 
author-name-as-spelled-by-the-author (the sooner you zoologists get 
the equivalent of the botanists' standard abbreviations the better!)

Paul - as far as I remember canonical name means the scientific name 
as correctly rendered according to the code: so no mis-spellings of 
the genus, mismatched genders, quadrinomials or other extra ranks

Sally
> > If the NameSimple element of TCS IS intended for verbatim spelling
> > then it needs another name, for clarity.
> 
> The history of "NameSimple" in TCS preceeds LC/Christchurch.  I'm not sure
> of its original intend, but I suspect it was created without a lot of
> thought to the distinction between "Code-correct" and "verbatim"
> name-strings (no criticism intended -- to be honest, I hadn't thought much
> about it either before we really started discussing LC).  In Christchurch, I
> think the LC breakout groups sort of assumed it would be a canonical
> concatenation....but that was before "Label" was introduced as a root
> element in LC.  I've asked the question a couple of times (what is the
> specific function of NameSimple), and I even re-christened it "NameVerbatim"
> in the version of TCS/LC that I sent (it didn't seem to get much
> traction...), to achieve exactly what you are suggesting.
> 
> > Otherwise it should be
> > exactly the same as the Label element of LC and be in the canonical
> > form, with another element there for the verbatim or as-published
> > spelling.
> 
> Why does there need to be two elements, with different names, in different
> parts of the overall schema, that share exactly the same purpose?  One could
> argue that it would serve the function of canonical name in cases where one
> only has the name, and has not (yet) established a link with a full
> canonical name object.  But I would counter that argument with the point
> that, such cases imply that one has not identified the proper canonical
> name, and as such, what else would one have, besides the verbatim name?
> 
> That said, I would STRONGLY advocate re-naming to "NameVerbatim", or
> "VerbatimSpelling", or something like that.
> 
> > A well designed schema should have element names which 'do
> > exactly what it says on the tin'
> 
> Actually, I think "NameSimple" leaves a lot of latitude for interpretation.
> 
> > - OK - I see your point. As it happens, IPNI will only be recording
> > the first publication of a name, so the number of orthographic
> > variants is limited to the original spelling of the author, plus any
> > corrections (or mistakes) made by IPNI rendering that into canonical
> > form. But other databases of course will record more than the first
> > use of a name. In that case each publication instance can come with
> > only one orthographic variant (unless the author has been
> > inconsistent within the article or book).
> 
> There are cases (more than just a rare few) where a single author will use
> more than one spelling in the same publication.  Sometimes this is clearly a
> lapsus or printer's error, ad can be safely ignored or mentioned in a
> human-readable comment somewhere.  At the other extreme are cases where the
> author used two different spellings where it's not so obviously a lapsus. I
> can give examples, if you're interested.  But I don't think this is
> something that needs to shape the structure of LC.  I would say it should
> support only one verbatim spelling per AccordingTo publciation/NameObject
> instance.
> 
> Also, when you say "original spelling of the author" -- can I safely assume
> you mean "original spelling of the scientific name by the original author",
> and not "original spelling of the author's name" (e.g., "L." vs.
> "Linnaeus")?
> 
> > To me it seems simple (I know you will correct me on this point) -
> > each concept will have one publication instance and hence one
> > orthographic rendering, which may be reproducibly correctable to one
> > canonical form.
> 
> No corrections!  This is exactly what I feel as well!
> 
> > Therefore the LC part of the schema needs to have a
> > place where the (single) 'as published' name goes, plus a place
> > (Label) where the canonical form goes.
> 
> In LC, I assume you mean the "as published" name is the verbatim name as it
> appeared in the original description/protologue?  If so, yes!
> 
> > I thought this was in the schema already.
> 
> I thought that's what "OriginalOrthography" was for (an element I
> wholeheartedly support, because this is a special-case "Verbatim" spelling,
> separate from the concept instance).
> 
> > Multiple versions of the same name-object will be
> > mapped onto each other by mapping concepts to concepts, because each
> > version should have a publication-instance of some sort.
> 
> Yes, but if Names are treated as stand-alone objects (as in v0.95.5), then
> the multiple verbatim renderings of the same "name" will also be
> cross-linked to each other by virtue of the fact that all of these concept
> instances will point to the same "NameObject" (LC instance).  Thus, the
> name-links would exist even without the concept-concept mappings.
> 
> > I think Rich and I are in agreement here ...
> 
> As do I!! :-)
> 
> > as to what consitutes a name object, I leave that to the real
> > taxonomists
> 
> So far (as in my previous), it seems to be:
> 
> Botany View:
> "GenusOrMonomial Name-Unit [+ species Name-Unit [+ tertiary Name-Unit +
> tertiary Name-Rank]]"
> 
> Zoological view:
> "Name-Unit"
> 
> Just so everyone is clear, "Name-Unit" is not simply the string of
> characters that form a single component of a scientific name.  Rather,
> "Name-Unit" implies a well-defined "object", with multiple inherent
> properties such as the creation event (=protologue), and many/most of the
> elements in LC.  It's what I would call a "Protonym".
> 
> Any other candidates to define a "NameObject"???
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tcs-lc mailing list
> Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc

*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk