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

[Richard Pyle]

> My understanding of what Rich wrote above is that in cases where
> we've not yet have appropriate scientific name Rotifera
> using include/inculded between Aus bus and rotifer is unecessary
> dicouraged.

I don't understand.

> If Rotifer[a?] is available and it matches to rotifer
> perfectly,

...then "Vernacular rotifer is congruent to scientific Rotifera"

> but if rotifer is broder than Rotifera....?

...then "Vernacular rotifer includes scientific Rotifera"

or, if no higher scientific name than "Aus bus", then:

"Vernacular rotifer includes scientific Aus bus"

???

I agree that "is vernacular for" and "has vernacular" RelationshipTypes seem
to imply only congruent relationships -- maybe that is your original point?
If so, I agree this is not good.

I still believe that we need only five enumerated RelationshipTypes for
TaxonConcepts:

- Is Congruent To
- Includes
- Is Included In
- Overlaps With
- Excludes

Maybe we need the "Not"s as well, but I'm struggling to think of any
real-world examples where anyone would ever use one of them.  I suppsoe the
hybrid ones may serve a useful purpose.  But I think most of the others are
either an unnecessarily specific flavor of one of the five, or don't really
belong here anyway (e.g. Ambiregnal).

Rich