[tdwg-content] Taxonomic name usage files

[Richard Pyle]

> 1. Given a multitude of well established and precise historical name usages, I explicitly don't want to commit to one in particular 
> that my present usage is congruent with, or not. (Indeed, I kind of think this is what the name withOUT a sec. does, "explicitly"). 

Yes! Exactly! 

> I choose to be vague - any past usage is ok with me, here. 

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).

> 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)? 

Yes - a TNU without any relationshipAssertions.  Basically, the only implied associations with other TNUs is via the Protonym link (i.e., a Nomenclatural Assertion).

> 2. Franz. 2010. Revision of Apotomoderes (Insecta: Coleoptera). => Actually, "Insecta" here is more of a social concession to an outdated data filing paradigm than 
> 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"; 
> that is *out of scope* (though the string is being written).

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.

Aloha,
Rich