[tcs-lc] policy for relationships in TCS

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks for the clarification, Jessie!

>    The TCS allows more choices if an expert simultaneously authors
> concepts AND asserts concept relationships. In that case, he or she has
> the option of placing the relationships inside the newly authored
> TaxonConcepts OR outside in the RelationshipAssertions.
>
>    We recommend the former solution (1) if the author wishes to make the
> relationship to another concept an integral part of the new concept
> definiton.

I thought the distinction of where to put Relationship information
(TaxonConcept vs. RelationshipAssertions) was about whether the
relationships are "definitive" (i.e., serve as part of the definition of the
authored concept), or whether they are intepretive (intepreted by a third
party).

To me, it seems like it should be stronger than a "recommendation" that such
"definitive" relationships be included within the TaxonConcept part.

> Note that we are not necessarily talking about parent-child
> relationships.

I understand and agree.  However, I would still find it helpful if someone
could explain to me what a "parent-child" relationship is in the context of
concepts.  In the context of NameObjects, I think it has a place in
establishing hierarchy (although perhaps best using different terminology).
But in the concept world, I don't understand the distinction between a
parent-child relationship and an "includes/included in" relationship.  From
a concept circumscription perspective, it is immaterial whether the
expressed relationship of "Name1 Sec. Smith > Name2 Sec. Jones" involves a
case where "Name1" and "Name2" are at the same nomenclatural rank, or
different nomenclatural ranks.  This is partly why I think that "Rank"
doesn't really belong within TaxonConcept at all, but should instead be
inherited from the corresponding NameObject.

> Earlier, external concepts may be used as well to nail
> down the meaning of a newly published concept. Example: Ranunculus
> abortivus L. sec. Kartesz (2004)  = =  Ranunculus abortivus L. sec. FNA
> (1997), where Kartesz (2004) places this relationship into the
> TaxonConcept definition to indicate that the newly published 2004
> concept is defined (!) by its relationship to the FNA 1997 concept.

Congruent, right?  If so, then why does Kartesz's use of the concept rise to
the level of a "defined" concept, rather than simply a usage?

>    We recommend the latter solution (2) if the author does not
> think of the relationship as an integral part of his or her new
> concept definition.

I think I understand your point here -- but I wonder, how often would if be
obvious to the external data-capturer whether a new conept's author intended
an expressed relationship to another concept as representing part of the new
concept definition, as opposed to an incidental extra piece of information?

> Perhaps other data (diagnosis, included concepts, etc.) are sufficient
> to specify the present meaning. Or the relationship to earlier concepts
> is not so clear as to nail down the new definition exactly how the
> author wants it to be. Example: Equisetum hyemale L. ssp. affine
> (Engelmann) Calder & R.L. Taylor sec. Weakley (2005)  >  E. hyemale var.
> affine (Engelmann) A.A. Eaton sec. Radford, Ahles & Bell (1968), as
> asserted by Weakley (2005). Here the latter author does not wish to
> define his new concept via its (inclusive) relationship to the 1968
> concept. Rather, Weakley intends to provide readers with a "guide" to
> understanding the taxonomic legacy. The precise definition of his new
> concept lies in the diagnosis and explanatory comments.

Hmmm...I'm not sure I follow this logic.  We presumably have these concept
definitions:

1) Equisetum hyemale L. ssp. affine (Engelmann) Calder & R.L. Taylor sec.
Weakley (2005)

2) E. hyemale var. affine (Engelmann) A.A. Eaton sec. Radford, Ahles & Bell
(1968)

If Weakly expressly states that his concept includes that of Radford et
al.'s 1968 concept, why does that not constitute part of the definition of
Weakly's concept?  Do we assume that Weakley says somewhere that he provides
this information only as matter of interest, and expressly not as part of
his concept definition?  Or are there other ways by which we can make the
distinction?

I understand that Weakley may not correctly understand the concept
circumscription of Radford et al., and therfore the character-based
definition may be in conflict with his assertion of the relationship between
his concept and that of Radford et al.  But that's a problem inherent to the
entire schema (i.e., would apply regardless of whether Weakley intended the
stated concept relationship to be definitive for his own concept, or not).
The same can be said when both character data and voucher specimens are
provided as part of a concept definition (i.e., some of the cited vouchers
may not be consistent with the cired character data).

>    No matter what option an author chooses at the time of authoring a
> concept, the possibility of authoring another (now by default)
> third-party relationship at a later time remains. Such a reassessment
> would "coexist" with the earlier relationship.

I think I follow your point here, but can you be more explicit about what
you mean by "at a later time"?

>    We think that this convention of assigning concept relationships
> inside vs. outside of the TaxonConcepts section is sensible. It is
> something that experts will appreciate as guidance when defining
> concepts and their relationships.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I could easily be brought into
agreement with you -- but I'm still not sure I fully understand all of the
implications.  Apologies for the long note, and further apologies for the
fact that I am leaving for two weeks, and may not be able to follow up on
the discussion.

Aloha,
Rich