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

[Richard Pyle]

I think one of the standards of practice in general will be only establish
the most proximate relationships -- regardless of whether you use
parent/child or includes/included in.

For example, if I establish that my concept of genus Centropyge is included
in family concept Pomacatnhidae, and that family concept Pomacanthidae is
included in order concept Perciformes, I shouldn't also establish an
explicit relationship that Centropyge is included in Perciformes.

Similar with vernacular names -- I don't think it should be encouraged
(though it's certainly not prohibited) to establish a relationship of "Aus
bus is included in vernacular Rotifer", if we already have a hierarchical
chain connecting Aus bus, to Rotifera, and separately connecting vernacular
"rotifer" to scientific "Rotifera".

Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
> [mailto:tcs-lc-bounces at ecoinformatics.org]On Behalf Of Nozomi Ytow
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:33 PM
> To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> Subject: Re: [tcs-lc] difference between IsParentOf/IsChildOf; and
> Includes/IsIncludedIn RelationshipTypes?
>
>
> Hi Jessie,
>
> > The includes/included in is to capture the equivalence between two
> > concepts in different classifications or revisions, i.e. horizontal
> > relationships between classifications.
>
> I'd like to point out that there are cases relationship between a
> scientific named TaxonConcept and vernacular concept falls in
> include/inlucded, e.g. "Aus bus is a rotifer".  Vernacular name
> rotifer may mean Rotifera, but used prior to definition of Rotifera.
>
> JMS
> _______________________________________________
> Tcs-lc mailing list
> Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc