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

Sally Hinchcliffe S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk
Fri May 6 07:18:03 PDT 2005


hmm reading this through I realise how I've got a bit out of touch 
with the latest version of the schema, and I had forgotten that the 
LC stuff was pulled out of the TCS stuff, or at least the 
implications of that. So before I dig myself in deeper, I'll need to 
get up to speed with the schema again ... on my list of things to do!
So scratch my last set of comments about what goes where. I think I 
agree with Rich's response & I don't want to end up arguing with 
myself on the matter.

Sally

> > 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
> 
> But if in LC, then "verbatim of what?"  Verbatim implies a specific usage
> instance.  For name objects, we would have a few "name-relevant" usages such
> as the original/protologue usage, and maybe a couple other special-case,
> nomenclaturally important usages. For those specific kinds of usages, I
> think there should be elements within LC (e.g., "OriginalOrthography")
> 
> But the vast majority of "usages" in TCS will be concept definitions, which
> go well beyond the small subset of usage instances that are of nomenclatural
> (i.e., Code-relevant) significance.  Thus, TCS needs an element to contain
> the VerbatimName as used by the AccordingTo authors for each Concept
> Definition instance -- well outside of LC.
> 
> Now, there will be some overlap. For example, suppose Pyle describes the new
> species Mygenus mispecies, but for particular reasons, the "Code-correct"
> spelling should be "Mygenus myspecies".
> 
> LC would keep track of two different name-strings:
> 
> <NameObject id="N123">
>   <Label>Mygenus myspecies</Label>
>   <OriginalOrthography>Mygenus mispecies</OriginalOrthography>
>   [...]
> </NameObject>
> 
> These are both name-relevant spellings, and thus rightly belong in LC.
> 
> But, of course, Pyle also would have defined a concept circumscription to go
> along with his new species, so there would also be a TaxonConcept instance:
> 
> <TaxonConcept id="TC001">
>   <Name ref="N123">
>     <NameVerbatim>Mygenus mispecies</NameVerbatim>
>   </Name>
>   <AccordingTo>
>     <AccordingToSimple>Pyle</AccordingToSimple>
>   </AccordingTo>
>   [etc...]
> </TaxonConcept>
> 
> {or something like that)
> 
> So...the point is, in this case the text string "Mygenus mispecies" would be
> in there twice -- not just as two separate instances of what happens to be
> the same string of characters, but literally the same piece of information
> (assuming "OriginalOrthography" is defined as "Verbatim Name as used in the
> protologue").
> 
> Small price to pay, I think.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Why does it need the canonical name within the TCS instance?  Why not just
> capture the Verbatim Name, then derive the Canonical from the Label element
> of the linked (via "ref" attribute of Name element in TC) NameObject?
> 
> > 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!)
> 
> Swap the words 'zoologists' and 'botantists' with each other, and you'll get
> a phrase I mutter to myself all the time!
> :-)
> 
> 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



More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list