[tcs-lc] Order of relationship types

Roger Hyam roger at hyam.net
Wed Sep 21 02:10:47 PDT 2005


I am not sure that ordering will make much difference as many tools will 
just present them in alphabetical order but it is worth doing if it 
makes the schema more readable. Also look at documentation.

I have raised this as issue 035.

Nozomi Ytow wrote:

>As Rich and Gregor pointed out, some of relationship types are
>ambiguous.  An practical difficulty is that a single relationship
>record may represented in two or more ways, e.g. 
>include/parent-child/synonym.
>
>I suggest to re-order the enumeration to assist choice of relationship
>type, and docuemnt it in the schema.  For example, if parent-child is
>placed prior to inclusion and document specifies to choose relationshp
>type appeared earliser, we can avoid this ambiguity as because
>parent-child is a subset of inclusion.
>I suspect the enumeration is orderd according to Nico's table but it is
>unnecessary because it is explicitly stated for some of relationship
>types.  We need to add to classificaiton information to description
>of anamorph, teleomorph, ambiregnal, vernacular and has synonym.
>"Hybrid Rlationship" category may be need to change to e.g. biological
>relationship which also covers anamorph and teleomorph.
>
>Cheers,
>JMS
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tcs-lc mailing list
>Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>
>  
>

-- 

==============================================
 Roger Hyam
----------------------------------------------
 Biodiversity Informatics
 Independent Web Development 
----------------------------------------------
 http://www.hyam.net  roger at hyam.net
----------------------------------------------
 2 Janefield Rise, Lauder, TD2 6SP, UK.
 T: +44 (0)1578 722782 M: +44 (0)7890 341847
==============================================




More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list