[tcs-lc] Unnecessary vernacular relationship types?
Roger Hyam
roger at tdwg.org
Fri Sep 23 07:28:04 PDT 2005
This seems like a concrete proposal so I have raised it as an issue 047
for possible modification of schema before V1.0 - depending on
discussion about implications.
Roger
Nozomi Ytow wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>The vernacular relationship pair are unnecessary because scientific
>attribute of TaxonConcept/Name became mandatory in v1.00. If
>TaxonConcept/Name at scientific have different values in TaxonConcept
>elements linked by a relationship-ish element then it means the
>relationship vernacular one. I should realise it when discussed about
>scientific and language, but I didn't realise relationship enumeration
>in that time... sigh.
>
>JMS
>_______________________________________________
>Tcs-lc mailing list
>Tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
http://www.tdwg.org
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/tcs-lc/attachments/20050923/3ff823fe/attachment.htm
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list