[tcs-lc] difference between IsParentOf/IsChildOf; and Includes/IsIncludedIn RelationshipTypes?

[Kennedy, Jessie]

Hi Rich

> 
> > > 3) What is the difference between IsParentOf/IsChildOf; and
> > > Includes/IsIncludedIn RelationshipTypes?
> > > Several times during the earlier TCS/LC email exchanges, I asked
for
> > > someone
> > > to distinguish between the following statements:
> > >   1) ConceptA is Parent of Concept B
> > >   2) ConceptA includes ConceptB
> >
> > The difference between these 2 types of relationships is that the
> parent/child
> > relationship is parent taxon of and child taxon of and is meant to
> represent
> > the relationships defined by a taxonomist when doing a revision.
i.e.
> the
> > relationships are as defined by one taxonomist for one
classification.
> i.e.
> > vertical relationships within a classification
> >
> > The includes/included in is to capture the equivalence between two
> concepts in
> > different classifications or revisions, i.e. horizontal
relationships
> between
> > classifications.
> 
> A couple more stuffs:
> 
> 1) Does this mean that parent/child relationships should only be used
when
> Relationship/ToTaxonConcept points to a Concept with the *same*
> AccordingTo
> as the current TaxonConcept, and includes/excludes relationships
should
> only
> be used when Relationship/ToTaxonConcept points to a Concept with a
> *different* AccordingTo?  Are there any exceptions to either of these?

Ok remembering there are 2 types of relationships - those defining the
concept and those made either by the same author or by other authors
regarding 2 concepts but not made at the main point of definition of the
concept as published.
So for those that are defining - the AccordingTo by definition is the
same - i.e. only those relationships stated in the AccordingTo which
scopes the concept being defined.
For the relationship assertions, I guess people might want to assert
parent/child relationships but what this really means is possibly
questionable - perhaps for sparse of poorly documented concepts, someone
might want to assert that they believe a concept is the parent or child
of another concept - we've never said people can't do this - as from
experience every time we tried to restrict what could be said someone
would say they wanted to be able to do it - so we've left that up to the
taxonomists to decide if it's something meaningful to them.
> 
> 2) The distinction between "horizontal" and "vertical" is a bit
squishy,
> if
> you are defining these in terms of specific taxonomic ranks.
So-called
> "horizontal" Relationships between different classifications could
indeed
> traverse ranks.  Or, is "vertical" defined simply as "Within a single
> classification", and "horizontal" as "between two different
> classifications"?

The latter - simply within and between (my simplistic mind then relates
this to vertical and horizontal when talking with other computing folks
- the vertical being within hierarchy and the horizontal relating two
hierarchies via some node)
> 
> > Clearly one could think of parent child as includes/included but the
> intention
> > was to be within and between classification comparison, which seemed
to
> be
> > different to us when modelling. One is about building the
classification
> and
> > the other is about comparing classifications. Hope this explains
this
> point
> > and you agree we need both.
> 
> I don't necesarily agree we need both (pending the answer to my
question
> #1
> above), except as a performance enhancement device to save the
processing
> time required to compare "AccordingTo"s of two TaxonConcet instances
> linked
> by a Relationship of Type "includes/included in".  This is complicated
> further by the "has synonym" RelationshipType.  In any case, clearly a
> point
> of discussion that exceeds the definition of "minor".

Well I don't know now whether you think we need both or not - just
depends on the level of semantics to be captured - I still think we need
both - but no-one is forcing you to use both if you don't want to or if
you believe there will be no loss of semantics by using only one.
> 
> A related question, though:  would one ever use parent/child
> RelationshipAssertion types? By your explanation above, I'm assuming
not.

See above - from my experience of talking to different taxonomists I
would say some would say definitely not and some would say I want to be
able to do that.....

> 
> P.S. After re-reading Roger's excellent UserGuide just now, I
understand
> why
> "IsLaterHomonym" is used instead of "IsJuniorHomonym".  

Good - this was one of the reasons for Roger doing the guide... to help
with interpreting how to use the TCS.

Jessie
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss
or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the 
University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.