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

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Roger -- that helps me understand things a bit better.

> Whether misspelled names get GUIDs is not an issue for the schema.
> That is another debate to be had in another place at another time.
> It will support them if they do and if they don't.

O.K., so the unit of a "NameObject" is not precisely defined -- which I
guess makes sense, if the other top-level object units are not well-defined
either.

However, given that the Asterropterix/Asterropteryx example I provided was
two different spellings used by the original author in the same publication
(=protologue) of the ICZN-recognized creation of the "Name(s)", both
refering to precisely the same Concept, it's not clear to me how I would
represent the TaxonConcept part of that dataset. Would there be a single TC
instance to accurately represent the fact that both names were
simultaneously applied to the exact same concept definition? (in which case
there would either be a need for a TaxonConcept to point to more than one
NameObject, or one of the two NameObjects would have to be chosen as the
linked one).  Or, would there be two separate TaxonConcept instances,
representing the identical defined concept, except that one of them points
to one of the NameObjects, and the other points to the other NameObject? (In
which case it might be misleading to establish the relationship between
these two TaxonConcepts as "congruent", when ther should really be typed as
"identical".)

I can understand that -- but it is a departure from what the original LC
group had discussed -- which would be a more regulated NameObject.  But as
you say, that's really not relevant to the schema.  The only question is
whether the nomenclaturalists will embrace the "NameObjects" part of TCS to
use as their standard of exchange.  I'm almost persuaded (given some changes
to the structure detail within NameObject).

> p.s. who are the "LC group"? You keep mentioning them.

Sorry -- this is a term we've been losely using since the Christchurch
meeting. LC=LinneanCore (which you probably already knew).  The "LC Group"
are the nomenclaturists whose primary need is to develop an exchange
standard to swap name-only (no implied concept) data.  The "birth" of
LinneanCore is a bit fuzzy, but is probably best defined as when Jerry
Cooper first drafted an XML schema (I forget when, exactly -- I think it was
during the GBIF meeting in Oaxaca).  The "LC group" self-assembled during
the 2004 TDWG meeting in Christchurch, and discussed Jerry's XML schema in
some detail during several break-out sessions.  Jessie and Robert attended
at least one of these sessions, and we spent a fair amount of time
discussing how LC & TCS would work together. The reason for forming a group
to flesh-out "LinneanCore" was that, at the time, TCS simply had the ABCD
Names structure inserted as a "placeholder" of sort for Name elements more
specific than "NameSimple". This was deemed inadequate to meet the needs of
nomenclators and nomenclaturists, so the "LC group" took it upon themselves
to hash out something more robust than the ABCD names schema, based on
Jerry's original "LinneanCore".

The "LC Group" continued the conversation via the LC Wiki
(http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/UBIF/LinneanCore), until such time
that some deep misunderstandings were brewing between the "LC group" and the
"TCS group" (particularly with regard to confusion that there would be some
sort of overlap or redundancy between the two).  To help mitigate further
misunderstandings of this sort, this email list (TCS/LC) was created to get
both "groups" discussing the issues in the same forum.

One need not have attended the TDWG meeting in Christchurch to be among the
"LC Group".  Rather, one must only have an appreciation for and
understanding of the need for nomenclators and other nomenclaturalists to
develop a robust schema to exchange Code-goverened-name data (without any
implied taxonomic concepts), and the willingness to contribute to the
conversation.

I think one of the main reasons many of us are spending so much time trying
to sort this out is that we are DESPERATELY trying to avoid developing two
related, but otherwise disconnected schemas (TCS & LC). These past few days'
worth of conversation have restored a substantial amount of optimism in my
mind (which, admittedly, had been waning -- hence my more gloomy posts of a
few weeks ago).  Perhaps with continued perseverance, we will prevail....at
least I sincerely hope so!

Aloha,
Rich