<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Good questions! Note that the stuff I was describing isn’t just GNUB; it’s embedded in the DwC terms as well. And the few elements that are missing from DwC are embedded in TCS. The main other aspects are the Reference metadata (the ill-fated TDWG Reference standard; now looking towards NLMS), and Agents (most people I know follow FOAF). Other than those, the main missing holes (in both GNUB and DwC) are the Appearance stuff, and perhaps a more robust approach to the relationshipAssertion stuff.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Maybe a task for TCS 2.0?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Once the standards fleshed out, I imagine the way to implement this stuff in new literature is via something along the lines of Pensoft’s PWT (now arpha): <a href="http://arpha.pensoft.net/">http://arpha.pensoft.net/</a> The natural group to focus on this would be PLAZI, which has been going gangbusters in recent months on capturing structured treatments from existing literature. [Pssst… Donat…. That’s your cue….]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rich<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Nico Franz [mailto:nico.franz@asu.edu] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:58 AM<br><b>To:</b> Richard Pyle<br><b>Cc:</b> Gaurav Vaidya; greg whitbread; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; vocab@noreply.github.com; Michael Rosenberg (Faculty)<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] Taxonomic name usage files<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks, Rich, for catching me up.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> So then if we can apparently cover a good bit of ground (with what I assume you'd call a "smart [or the only] way of implementing GNUB"), this does raise the question of how to bring this as close as possible to the peer-review/publication process where an author team may be motivated to express their intentions related to name usages in various explicit, structurally recorded ways.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best, Nico<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Richard Pyle <<a href="mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org" target="_blank">deepreef@bishopmuseum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> 1. Given a multitude of well established and precise historical name usages, I explicitly don't want to commit to one in particular<br>> that my present usage is congruent with, or not. (Indeed, I kind of think this is what the name withOUT a sec. does, "explicitly").<br><br>Yes! Exactly!<br><br>> I choose to be vague - any past usage is ok with me, here.<br><br>During the TCS days, this is what we referred to as a "Nomenclatural Concept", which is roughly the sum/average of all historical treatments, more or less (ambiguity and vagueness deliberate/intentional).<br><br>> I think we can presently model the vagueness (by integrating on the strings alone), but not the deliberateness thereof (in contrast to other situations where vagueness is not intended)?<br><br>Yes - a TNU without any relationshipAssertions. Basically, the only implied associations with other TNUs is via the Protonym link (i.e., a Nomenclatural Assertion).<br><br>> 2. Franz. 2010. Revision of Apotomoderes (Insecta: Coleoptera). => Actually, "Insecta" here is more of a social concession to an outdated data filing paradigm than<br>> a claim to an active speaker role (related to name usages that I actually care about). I am not intending to apply my taxonomic expertise to "Insecta";<br>> that is *out of scope* (though the string is being written).<br><br>So... in that case, the question is whether to represent "Insecta" as used in Franz 2010 as a scientific name, or vernacular name (two different ways of modelling names, as the latter do not have structured Codes). Even if you fall on the side of using it as a scientific (taxon) name, you can still create a TNU for it. In the spirit of Walter's pioneering work on this stuff, TNUs only represent "potential" taxa.<br><br>Aloha,<br>Rich<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>