[tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking

[Richard Pyle]

> This is something that has been slightly confused over the years, ie there
seems to be 2 ways of defining a "taxon concept":
> 1. A Taxon Name (nomenclatural data) + Literature Reference - ie Name X as
defined in article Y
> 2. As you have said a grouping of data that define a taxon concept (Name +
Reference + Synonyms + Type Specimen + Protologue, .)

I don't think of these as two different ways of defining a concept.  I see
#1 as a way of *pointing to* a taxon concept definition, and #2 as the
concept definition itself.  Basically, #1 (usage instance) is effectively a
container or an identifier for the taxon concept definition.

However, there is somewhat of a dichotmy in the way that taxon concepts are
defined - one is by included members (i.e., specimens, presumably including
at least one name-bearing type specimen, from which a name-label is
derived), the other is by properties (i.e. characters -- morphologic,
genetic, or otherwise).  In practice, most concept definitions include both.
But I think the "definition" of the concept (i.e., the circumscription
boundaries) is the same for both -- it's just that those boundaries can be
articulated in different ways (i.e., by examplar members, and by purported
properties).

> 1 has been covered quite well with the various schemas we have come up 
> with over the years, but I think these schemas have failed to capture 
> 2 very well (the data fields are there, but the encompassing ID is not),
ie

Agreed -- sort of.  I think the schemas are there, but have not been
organized appropriately (yet).  See below.

	 
> TaxonName ID = N1, FullName = "Aus bus"
> Reference ID = R1, Citation = "Richards, how to define a taxon concept"
> TaxonConcept ID = C1, NameID = N1, ReferenceID = R1
> BUT, the taxon concept C1 does not encompass all related data that defines
that concept (synonyms etc)

No, but it could, through a network of linkages, as I tried to describe in
one of my recent posts.

> To do that we need more Concept Ids and relationships between these
concepts, eg

Exactly!  And we need a schema-based process to capture the relevant
information (diagnoses, etc.), anchored to the Concept Ids.  At a basic
level, Plazi/TaxonX does this.  However, it usually only goes as far as the
text-blob.  To parse the text blob, we need to either look towards SDD (for
character-based concept definition stuff) or DwC/Occurrence (for
specimen-based concept definition stuff).
	 
> ConceptRelationship ID=CR1 ConceptFromID=C2, ConceptToID =C1,
RelationshipType='has preferred name'

Yes, I agree we need this as well!  But again, I see this as a way of
networking pointers to taxon concept defintions, not describing the
definitions themselves.

Man, these conversations really hurt my brain.... :-)

Aloha,
Rich