[tcs-lc] Unnecessary vernacular relationship types?

[Nozomi Ytow]

Hi Rich,

> I don't see this as justification for having an element that contains the
> same information (in the vast majority of cases) in two separate places in
> the schema.  If Japanese vernacular names have formal ranks, then maybe they
> should be treated as NameObjects (TaxonNames?), or maybe they should have
> their own sub-structure comparable to NameObject/TaxonName/LC.

Only maybe.  It is unnecessary that the soruce database
has both vernacular and scientific name for all data entry for taxon
concepts having at least one vernacular name.  Adding more, TaxonName
is not mandatory even if TaxonCncept/Name at scientific is true.

Anyway, I don't thin your proposal satisfies criteria of
pre-ratification modification. 

JMS