[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