[tcs-lc] Minor modifications prior TDWG ratification vote

[Nozomi Ytow]

Rich,

> > There can be cases where it doesn't work because of optional ranks
> > such as subfamily.
> But that's how you define the "threshold".

Not only by mine but also data provider and author of the publication.
Suppose a publications says that "rotifer has been considered a kind
of ciliates, but my research indicates it is wrong even though I can't
tell to whchi taxa should belong".  What naive deta provider can
record is that the author gives incertae sedis status to say Rotifera
vodka.  When a user serch the database with "Rotifera vodka", [s]he
will get only the record of Rotifera vodka except if a chain of higher
taxa is mandatory as return record.  Would you like to have all
chain of higher taxa for every record via TCS-compatible data souces?

> > > What is the utility of defining "incertae sedis"
> > > explicitly, rather than deriving it?
> > Because source data are unnecessary perfect.  Data
> > verificatin/scrutinise is one of major motivation to use TCS.
> I don't follow.  Are you referring to taxonomy data, or specimen
> data (with taxonomy identifications)? 

Taxonomy data, including such as Rotifera vodka above.

> Is the purpose to capture an "insertae sedis"
> flag from the original source regardless of how the source defines "incertae
> sedis"? 

I can't understand this sentence.  Could you prease rephrase?

> Or is there one common definition of "incertae sedis" to which all
> data should conform, but that cannot always be deduced by comparing the rank
> of the child to the rank of the parent?

I don't know.  What I'd like to see is a way to put data without 
assistance of taxonomist as possible to assist review data and
revision by taxonomists.


> > It is desing issue, or, application performance issue.
> > You are right logically, but it is not optimal in performance.
> Hmmm...I wonder if the designation is important enough to create a structure
> for it simply for the purpose of improving performance.

If so, how do you explain the richness of reference types of TCS?


> O.K., I guess I need to know what data in your structure would be lost, or
> cannot be represented in TCS 1.0. I will look at the database.

It is sufficient to see link_type table (or named as something like that).

> I wonder if what we really need is a VernacularNameObject structure to
> accomodate such relationships.  I thought one of the original assumptions
> was that TCS was primarily intended for Linnean-style scientific names, with
> only rudimentary support for non-scientific names. Maybe this has changed?

I don't know SEEK-Taxon's requirement, but appropriate support of
vernacular names is definitly necessary for GBIF.

Cheers,
JMS