Hmmm, I'm struggling to see how adding name-usage instances (of which there will be an awful lot more than just names) will make this diagram any less complex. In fact, the names in the diagram could be regarded as name-usages (if I just tack on the literature source), omitting subsequent usages of a name.

I take it you are limiting the mapping of Taxon Name GUIDs to be between GUIDs for the "same" name in different databases? I say "same" because, leaving taxon-concepts aside, the presence of homonyms between the codes makes mapping names as strings problematic (indeed, GenBank uses names to map between its databases an external sources, and there are quite a few cases where this mapping is erroneous).

I should point out that the picture I attached is a particularly messy example where the plant species Oxylobium lineare has been moved to a new genus (Gastrolobium), but the resulting binomial (G. lineare) already exists (although it is treated as a synonym of G. callistachys). Consequently, a new species epithet was created, resulting in G. ebrachteolatum. I found this out the hard way when looking at TreeBASE names, trying to figure out how come a sequence for Gastrolobium ebrachteolatum was listed in GenBank as being from Oxylobium lineare. Furthermore, these are just the links represented in MOBOT. There should be additional links (for example, Oxylobium linearis and Callistachys linearis must be synonyms).

Rod

On 14 Sep 2005, at 07:05, Richard Pyle wrote:

Hi Rod,

...

Regarding mapping between GUIDs, I suspect the mapping may get very complicated, and a simple tree might not be appropriate. Attached is an example of relationships between names in MOBOT, based on RDF I generate for LSIDs for MOBOT names.

I think the diagram you sent seems complex only because it endeavors to create direct linkages between name objects. As far as I'm concerned, the only linkages shown on your diagram that should be treated as a direct NameObject-NameObject links are the "basionym" links (actually, in my view, this kind of relationship does not even need to exist at all). All of the other links should be routed between and among Name Objects indirectly, via name-usage instances. The complexity is then passed to the network of name usages, and would not affect the mapping of Taxon Name GUIDs that Peter described.

Aloha, Rich

Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom

Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html

Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/

___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com