24 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
24 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RicardoPereira" date="1170088533" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
|
||
|
|
---+++ What Name Units to Assing Identifiers?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
RichardPyle on mailing list:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I want to underscore what I feel is a fundamentally important issue that needs to be addressed early on in any serious discussion of GUIDs for taxonomic names. There is no broad agreement on what a unit "Name" really is, or should be. Consider the following list:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Pomacanthidae
|
||
|
|
2. Pomacanthinae
|
||
|
|
3. _Centropyge_
|
||
|
|
4. _Xiphypops_
|
||
|
|
5. _Centropyge_ (_Xiphypops_)
|
||
|
|
6. _Centropyge flavicaudus_
|
||
|
|
7. _Centropyge flavicauda_
|
||
|
|
8. _Xiphypops flavicaudus_
|
||
|
|
9. _Centropyge_ (_Xiphypops_) _flavicauda_
|
||
|
|
10. _Centropyge fisheri_
|
||
|
|
11. _Centropyge fisheri flavicauda_
|
||
|
|
12. _Centropyge_ (_Xiphypops_) _fisheri flavicauda_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
How many Name-GUIDs would be needed for the above list? From one perspective there would be twelve GUIDs -- one for each "namestring". In ITIS, there would be ten TSNs (#9 would not receive a separate TSN from #7, nor would #12 receive a separate TSN from #11). From the botanical perspective (imagining these as botanical names), there would be at least seven (#6 & #7 would be spelling variants of the same "name", and I don't believe that #9 and #12 would be treated as different "names" from #7 and #11, respectively), and perhaps eight (not sure if #1 & #2 would be the same or different "names", the former being at rank Family, and the latter Subfamily). From the zoological perspective, there may be only five: [1+2], [3], [4+5], [6+7+8+9+11+12], [10] (the various flavors of each "Name" unit would be considered attributes of the usage -- i.e., tied to the Concept object).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Before a GUID system can be implemented for taxon names, there needs to be a clear definition of what "unit" of name should receive a unique GUID, vs. what textual elements represent attributes of a usage concept) instance. No definition is perfectly unambiguous in all cases, but I think it's important that the broader community adopt a SINGLE definition of what a Name unit is. Having separate systems for Botany vs. Zoology vs. whatever would, I think, go a very long way toward defeating the purpose of establishing taxon name GUIDs in the first place.
|