Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Donald -- and my apologies for interpreting too much detail in your
request. The question of whether concepts need their own GUIDs, vs. being
represented by Name-GUID+Publication-GUID, as posed in your original Post on
this "Topic 3", seemed to me a more specific question than the issue of what
a "Name" object is or should be -- so I had calibrated my level of
specificity in my response too precisely.

I understand and agree that the focus should be broader at this stage, and I
will re-calibrate the level of specificity of my comments accordingly.

> For example, Yde's suggestions about
> fundamentally different expectations among zoologists and
> botanists need to be addressed in the TCS group.

It was discussed among the TCS group -- at GREAT length.  There seems no
easy answer, other than "different solutions for different Codes", which
seems to me to be the genesis of a terrible future legacy....

It all boils down to the distinction of which attributes apply to a Name
object, vs. which apply to usage instances.  The botanical approach stacks
more attributes on the Name object, whereas the zoological approach tends to
put them more on the usage instances.  But as you suggest, this is something
best saved for a Taxonomy GUID subgroup discussion.

In any case, thanks for your clarification of the focus.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html