No subject
Tue Mar 22 16:43:40 PST 2005
when it contains a specific unique combination of one-to-three
Protonyms,
candidates 1-6, plus 9 and 11 would be considered separate "Names", with
the
others (7, 8, 10, 12) treated as orthographic variants (stored in the
"AppliedName" element in the context of a Concept/usage of my proposed
Nominal-Concept-based version of the schema).
Finally, from the perspective of TCS, I gather all 12 of these
candidates
would be considered separate "Names" in the sense that each one would be
represented by a separate Original Concept (and corresponding Nominal
Concept). Correct?
So, in summary, we have at least four ways to define what constitutes a
distinct "Name" entity/object:
A. Name=3DProtonym
(Zoological perspective; 4 distinct "Names" represented, the others
representing alternative usage contexts and spelling variations).
B. Name=3DGenusProtonym+TerminalEpithetProtonym combination
(Botanical perspective(?); 6 distinct "Names" represented, the others
representing alternative usage contexts and orthographic variations).
C. Name=3DUnique Set of One-to-Three Protonyms
(Botanical perspective(?); 8 distinct "Names" represented, the others
representing alternative orthographic variations).
D. Name=3DCharacter string [as appears in association with a concept
definition]
(TCS perspective; 12 distinct "Names" represented).
If I'm not mistaken, I think that option "D" would also consider the
following 4 examples to be additional distinct Names, each with their
own
Original Concept:
13) Aus (Xus) aus L.
14) Aus (Xus) bea Archer
15) Aus (Xus) beus Archer
16) Aus (Xus) aus L. beus Archer
Correct?
My first choice would be to go with option "A", and my second choice
would
be to go with option "C". My reasons are not based on Codes of
Nomenclature, but rather on consistency of logic and normalization, and
heavier reliance on intra-dataset cross-referencing, assuming we end up
with
some sort of "Names as Objects" implementation (either as top-level
objects,
or anchored to Nominal Concept objects, or anchored to Original Concept
objects).
Am I the only one who feels that settling down on (agreeing to) a single
answer to this question (What constitutes a unique "Name"?) is of
critical
importance for the design and implementation of the TCS/LC schema?
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html
_______________________________________________
tcs-lc mailing list
tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org
http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/tcs-lc
------_=_NextPart_001_01C529FD.C231CB7F
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>RE: [tcs-lc] Next 4 days...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>six name objects; twelve concept objects - 9 & 11 =
(and 10 & 12) are not names in Botanical Nomenclature. 13-16 are not =
names but concepts (taxonomic opinions), assuming the string in =
parentheses represents an infrageneric (supraspecific) epithet. Yes, we =
should settle the question of what constitutes a name but it will have =
to be Code specific because of the way the ICZN mixes (IMHO) too much =
taxonomy with its nomenclature ;-)<BR>
<BR>
Paul<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Richard Pyle<BR>
To: tcs-lc at ecoinformatics.org<BR>
Sent: 16/03/05 07:39<BR>
Subject: [tcs-lc] Next 4 days...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi All,<BR>
<BR>
I presume that some version of TCS will be submitted to TDWG on =
March<BR>
20th -- correct? Jessie -- could you provide a short synopsis of =
what<BR>
you<BR>
expect that version to look like? Will it be more like v0.85, or =
more<BR>
like<BR>
v0.90? Or maybe v0.88? Will you make any changes to Kingdom or Rank<BR>
elements? I know there will still be time to make changes during the<BR>
next<BR>
60(?) days, but you ought to at least grab the low-hanging fruit =
(i.e.,<BR>
the<BR>
things we all seem to agree on, like changing Kingdom to NomenCode)<BR>
before<BR>
submitting.<BR>
<BR>
These questions aside, I think that it is important to settle on the<BR>
unit of<BR>
a "Name". In the context of LC, the question is =
"What is a fundamental<BR>
unit<BR>
of a Name Object?" In the context of TCS, the question is =
"What sorts<BR>
of<BR>
usages will warrant an Original Concept, and a corresponding Nominal<BR>
Concept?"<BR>
<BR>
Drawing from the example dataset located on the TCS Wiki:<BR>
<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=3DTCSAndTheLi=
nneanCore">http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/tdwg/index.php?pagename=3DTCSAndTh=
eLinneanCore</A><BR>
<BR>
(plus a few inventions of my own), we can consider these candidates:<BR>
<BR>
1) Aus L.<BR>
2) Xus Pargiter<BR>
3) Aus aus L.<BR>
4) Aus bea Archer<BR>
5) Xus aus (L.) Smith<BR>
6) Xus bea (Archer) Pargiter<BR>
7) Aus beus Archer<BR>
8) Xus beus (Archer) Pargiter<BR>
9) Aus aus L. bea Archer<BR>
10) Aus aus L. beus Archer<BR>
11) Xus aus (L.) Smith bea (Archer) Pargiter<BR>
12) Xus aus (L.) Smith beus (Archer) Pargiter<BR>
<BR>
In a world where Name-objects are treated as top-level objects, how =
many<BR>
name-GUIDs are represented above?<BR>
<BR>
In a world where Names remain as attributes of Concept-objects, how =
many<BR>
different Original Concepts are represented above?<BR>
<BR>
I'm only focusing on the Name entity -- there are no concept<BR>
circumscriptions implied above (i.e., no need to consider =
"SEC."<BR>
authors).<BR>
<BR>
I think that everyone would agree that candidates 1, 2, 3 and 4 each<BR>
represent distinct name objects. Candidates 1 & 2 are =
treated<BR>
nomenclaturally in the Genus group, and numbers 2 and three are =
treated<BR>
nomenclaturally in the species group.<BR>
<BR>
More information about the Tcs-lc
mailing list