[tcs-lc] Names as Objects
Gregor Hagedorn
G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE
Wed Mar 9 05:01:33 PST 2005
Gregor:
> > If I publish an xml document that contains the new
> > monograph for a genus -
> > how do I represent the names for which I provide keys and
> > descriptions in that document?
Jessie:
> you would just enter the name in the name element - if it were a completely new
> name then nothing else, if you were syaing the name was a nov.comb or whatever
> you would enter a relationship to the original concept that is was nov/comb of.
Perhaps we almost agree. For the purpose you mention above, I would need an
object type (name object or TCS Nominal type) that allows, in the context of
SDD, TaXMLit, TaxonX to express the name data. That is what I look at
LinneanCore for.
I dislike the TCS with type="nominal" approach, because thus I can not separate
issues. There is no way in w3c schema to ONLY use TCS with type attribute
having value = "nominal". You MUST use the entire type and since that the is a
complex type containing most TCS types (or containing elements that depend on
TCS literature and voucher) almost the entire TCS schema.
The problem with SDD needing Ids on these objects could perhaps be addressed by
redesigning SDD. Currently, an SDD description is held together by which person
or team authored it. As a consequence, in collaborations, multiple descriptions
refer to the same name. SDD therefore uses IDs to relate these to a single
name. THis could be redesigned by putting all information within a name, but
the current design is based on the assumption that descriptions will be
federated and provided from different data providers around the world. In a
federated environment, one needs machine reasoning about whether the same name
object is used or not.
> >concepts database and put the id into the new document. If the
> >online-monograph >creates a new concept, at least the nominal concept may be in
> >a name service >(most likely it is not databased yet, however). But if the
> >name is new as well, >it can not possibly be there.
>
> ?why?
You cannot have a new publication already indexed in a database that indexes
already published publications. Putting it first in the indexing database would
be illegal under the nomenclatural codes, since then the name would first have
been invalidly published.
> Thing is I believe you don't want to pass all of this nomenclatural informaitn
> around with your names either Gregor, you just want the code validated name -
> not the reasons why it is valid etc. - am I correct? I think this is what Walter
> wants too for ABCD. So I think he was hoping for a "simple type" to replace in
> ABDC - even though I think he should have a concept reference in there (even if
> it is a nominal one)
Almost, but not quite. For SDD proper only a structured name with an optional
pointer to a nomenclatural service like Index Fungorum is needed. For the
online monograph scenario (which will be the real use of SDD) also information
about the nomenclatural and synonymy will become tied in.
Gregor----------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list