This raises the old argument for scoring _data_ in our databases rather than information derived from those data. This is to say that your system should at least allow of scoring descriptive data at specimen level rather than at the conceptual level of species (or other taxa). Thus the descriptions of taxa could be derived "just in time", ie on the fly when required. Redetermination of a given suite of specimens would result in all the relevant descriptions, keys, and other products being, in effect, dynamic. This will be vital for projects which are institutional or international in scope.
Nicholas Lander WA Herbarium (PERTH)
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Shattuck [mailto:Steve.Shattuck@CSIRO.AU] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:51 PM To: TDWG-SDD@USOBI.ORG Subject: Re: Taxonomic hierarchy in SDD
Sounds fine, store the hierarchy but keep it separate from the items. No worries. The idea of supporting multiple hierarchies for different inheritances is interesting and I can see its potential importance. I'll need to test it out here in "biology land" to see if it makes sense in practice.
I believe that the classification is tied very closely to taxon concepts, and that descriptions are certainly tied to concepts. If you change the concept you almost always change the description, and so knowing the classification can be important in understanding what the author is up to.
Steve