Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts - Maybe ...

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Jessie. No doubt I am the culprit for many misunderstandings --
especially given that is is nearly 4am and I should really call it quits.

> I agree with Donald that a shorthand to referring to a Taxon_Concept is
the combination
> of Taxon_Name and the Taxon_Publication. This is slightly but importantly
different to
> Rich here in that the publication should be seen as a taxonomic
publication (for
> another discussion elsewhere) rather than any publication - i.e. not
simply usage of a
> name which could include an observation or identification - this
interpretation
> opens up Taxonomic_Concepts too widely to cover potential taxa rather than
those which
> have been defined, described and published in some scientific manner.)

In the context of this discussion, I'm not quibbling on this point.  I'm
happy to assume, for the moment, that "Concepts" would be a (small) subset
of usages. I didn't mean to draw this distinction, and I apologize if it
seems like I did.  I've only used the term "usage" in the sense of "SEC" --
I did not mean to insinuate that *all* usages should be thought of as
concepts. Like you said -- for another discussion elsewhere.

> I agree with Sally that we should have Nomenclators provide GUIDs for
Taxon_Names but
> would be more strict and say that these names should have only one GUID
and that the GUID
> should always resolve to exactly the same name. So IPNI would be plant
names, Index
> fugorum fungi names, zoobank when available animal names etc. and that we
should
> share the resource of fixing this rather than duplicating effort (if I had
any
> resource to give;-) ) IPNI and IF wouldn't overlap in names.

This is congruent with my thinking.  But are you comfortable with these
different nomenclators having different definitions of a "name"? Might make
it hard to pool cross-nomenclator data.

Definitely bed time...

Rich