1. A literature ref field that contains a string representation of a citation of Pyle 2005 and or a GUID that points off to get more information about the publication.
   
2. A  GUID that points to the data object containing data about Xea ba (Smith 1995) Jones 2000 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID for 9
   
3. A GUID that points to the data object containing stuff about Aus bus Smith 1995 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID for 10.
   
4. A GUID that points to the data object containing stuff about Aus cus Smith 1995 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID for 11.
   

Thanks, Yde -- I should have included the junior synonym example in my
original list, so I'm glad you raised it.

Let me slightly modify your list (I've stripped the name authorships to make
it less cluttered -- we assume no homonyms here -- and "ba" is the feminine
form of "bus"):

1. Aus, as it appears in Smith 1995
2. Aus bus, as it appears in Smith 1995
3. Aus cus, as it appears in Smith 1995
4. Xea, as it appears in Jones 2000
5. Xea ba, as it appears in Jones 2000
6. Aus, as it appears in Pyle 2005
7. Xea, as it appears in Pyle 2005
8. Xea bus, as it appears in Pyle 2005
9.   = Xea ba (Smith 1995) Jones 2000
10.  = Aus bus Smith 1995
11.  = Aus cus Smith 1995

The last 3 are "as they appear in Pyle 2005").

Among the three implied junior synonyms (#s 9, 10 & 11), there are several
types:

- #9 is the same basionym, same combination, different epithet spelling.

- #10 is the same basionym, same epithet spelling, different combination.

- #11 is a different basionym.

I see these as three different classes of "synonyms", and I do not believe
that we need to enumerate these (and other) classes of synonyms before we
can implement a GUID system for taxon objects.

Applying the NameUsage instance paradigm as I have described it to this
case, #s 1-7 would each get a distinct GUID. As for 8-11, because there are
four distinct NameStrings within one documentation instance (Pyle 2005) --
four GUIDs would be assigned.

There are various degrees of ambiguity as to what nomenclatural and Concept
links could/would/should be established among these nine GUID-represented
objects (some are obvious, and some may not be obvious), but at least there
is no ambiguity about what objects should have a GUID assigned to them.

Aloha,
Rich

  

--

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger@tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------