[tcs-lc] Incertae Sedis, and broader issues

[Richard Pyle]

I don't find any enumerated RelationshipTypes as part of the TCS 1.00
schema.  Maybe I'm not looking carefully enough?  Where would I find them?
I'm looking at the "VotingDraftFinal" located here:

http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=VotingDraft

Subtyping would be nice (and would involve a non-minor change to TCS), but
all I am trying to suggest is that there is no difference between "is parent
of/is child of", "has member/is member of", and "includes/is included in".

Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
> [mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Nozomi Ytow
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 11:16 AM
> To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] Incertae Sedis, and broader issues
>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> > Why not the standard "includes/is included in"? Same thing as
> "has member/is
> > member of"?
>
> Simply because it may be major modification if we reorganise
> enumerated relationship types, while changing name of relationship
> type is rather minor mondification.
> I prefer reorganisation with subtyping, but it is too late after
> recomendation vote, I think.
>
> Cheers,
> JMS
> _______________________________________________
> Tcs-lc mailing list
> Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc