383 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
383 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
head 1.15;
|
||
|
|
access;
|
||
|
|
symbols;
|
||
|
|
locks; strict;
|
||
|
|
comment @# @;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.15
|
||
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.14;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
date 2006.05.04.11.26.27; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.13;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.13
|
||
|
|
date 2006.04.25.08.36.50; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.12;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.12
|
||
|
|
date 2004.08.09.10.31.19; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.11;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.11
|
||
|
|
date 2004.08.09.04.33.21; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.10;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.10
|
||
|
|
date 2004.07.12.09.45.46; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.9;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.9
|
||
|
|
date 2004.06.21.11.30.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.8;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.8
|
||
|
|
date 2004.06.01.08.39.06; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.7;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.7
|
||
|
|
date 2004.05.28.17.45.27; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.6;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.6
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.25.15.38.33; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.5;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.5
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.12.01.15.41; author JacobAsiedu; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.4;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.4
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.11.22.21.31; author KevinThiele; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.3;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.3
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.11.18.08.23; author JacobAsiedu; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.2;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.09.12.59.42; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.1;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
date 2004.03.08.18.52.43; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next ;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
desc
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.15
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@---+!! %TOPIC%
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1146741987" format="1.0" version="1.14"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
||
|
|
* UnnamedBodyPartsDefinedByLocation
|
||
|
|
* [[#RepresentingSexes][Representing different sexes]]
|
||
|
|
* [[#BlackBorderedBy][Representing a modified state like "Black bordered by orange-brows"]]
|
||
|
|
* ClosedTopicStandardNamesForAbundanceStates
|
||
|
|
This topic is for (the discussion of) recommendations to developers.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#RepresentingSexes How should one define the <nop>RankLevel of two different sexes of a species. Are they both Species?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 08 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes. Neither sex nor development stages (is a baby a human species?) are related to the concept of a taxonomic hierarchy. Populations, metapopulations, subspecies, species, genera etc. all reflect evolutionary history - sex and stages don't. Please see the discussion under ResolvedTopicRankLevelBogosity. The problem raised in TheProblemOfSex is nevertheless valid and we don't have a solution yet! (See also the attempt to clarify it under SecondaryClassifiersWithinClasses.)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn, 9. Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#BlackBorderedBy How should one define a <nop>Character "Margin of Hind Wing Dorsal" of some species (Butterfly) which has the following state "Black bordered by orange-brown".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 11 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This surely depends entirely on the context of the description/key. For instance, if we are dealing with a discriminatory structure (a key, whether pathway or matrix) and the contradistinction is between one group of butterlies with dorsal hindwings that are "black bordered with orange-brown" versus another group that are "brown bordered with orange-black" then it would be quite appropriate to have those two as states of a single character. Note that each "state" is actually a "mini-description", a common occurrence (particularly in pathway keys, less so in matrix keys where the level of atomization is usually greater). If however the purpose of the character is for a description, it may be desirable to atomize it into "Sub-Margin of dorsal hindwing: black" and "Border of margin of dorsal hindwing: orange-brown". The point is that the level of atomization must be left to the user who will behave according to the context - we cannot be proscriptive here, as that way danger lies.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Is this what you meant?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.KevinThiele - 11 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes that is what i meant. Thanks. I think i have a better understanding now than i did this morning :) will let you all know when i face any more problems.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
How should states true and false be declared? Is it up to each Terminology to deal with this? I hope not, for integration's sake. -- Main.BobMorris - 09 Aug 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
At the moment they are simply declared as concept states, like red and blue. Why not? I do not see an integration issue depending on this. "Yes/No", "true/false", "absent/present", "square/not so" all may express the same boolean fact, depending on how the character is formulated. If we would define standard-wide constants for true and false, what would that gain us, without also standardizing the character for it? -- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 9 Aug. 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 2
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.13
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 2
|
||
|
|
a2 2
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1145954210" format="1.0" version="1.13"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.12
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1092047479" format="1.0" version="1.12"}%
|
||
|
|
d3 39
|
||
|
|
a41 38
|
||
|
|
* UnnamedBodyPartsDefinedByLocation
|
||
|
|
* [[#RepresentingSexes][Representing different sexes]]
|
||
|
|
* [[#BlackBorderedBy][Representing a modified state like "Black bordered by orange-brows"]]
|
||
|
|
* ClosedTopicStandardNamesForAbundanceStates
|
||
|
|
This topic is for (the discussion of) recommendations to developers.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#RepresentingSexes How should one define the <nop>RankLevel of two different sexes of a species. Are they both Species?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 08 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes. Neither sex nor development stages (is a baby a human species?) are related to the concept of a taxonomic hierarchy. Populations, metapopulations, subspecies, species, genera etc. all reflect evolutionary history - sex and stages don't. Please see the discussion under RankLevelBogosity. The problem raised in TheProblemOfSex is nevertheless valid and we don't have a solution yet! (See also the attempt to clarify it under SecondaryClassifiersWithinClasses.)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn, 9. Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
#BlackBorderedBy How should one define a <nop>Character "Margin of Hind Wing Dorsal" of some species (Butterfly) which has the following state "Black bordered by orange-brown".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 11 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This surely depends entirely on the context of the description/key. For instance, if we are dealing with a discriminatory structure (a key, whether pathway or matrix) and the contradistinction is between one group of butterlies with dorsal hindwings that are "black bordered with orange-brown" versus another group that are "brown bordered with orange-black" then it would be quite appropriate to have those two as states of a single character. Note that each "state" is actually a "mini-description", a common occurrence (particularly in pathway keys, less so in matrix keys where the level of atomization is usually greater). If however the purpose of the character is for a description, it may be desirable to atomize it into "Sub-Margin of dorsal hindwing: black" and "Border of margin of dorsal hindwing: orange-brown". The point is that the level of atomization must be left to the user who will behave according to the context - we cannot be proscriptive here, as that way danger lies.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Is this what you meant?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.KevinThiele - 11 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes that is what i meant. Thanks. I think i have a better understanding now than i did this morning :) will let you all know when i face any more problems.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
How should states true and false be declared? Is it up to each Terminology to deal with this? I hope not, for integration's sake. -- Main.BobMorris - 09 Aug 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
At the moment they are simply declared as concept states, like red and blue. Why not? I do not see an integration issue depending on this. "Yes/No", "true/false", "absent/present", "square/not so" all may express the same boolean fact, depending on how the character is formulated. If we would define standard-wide constants for true and false, what would that gain us, without also standardizing the character for it? -- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 9 Aug. 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.11
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1092026001" format="1.0" version="1.11"}%
|
||
|
|
d38 2
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.10
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1089625546" format="1.0" version="1.10"}%
|
||
|
|
d36 3
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.9
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1087817400" format="1.0" version="1.9"}%
|
||
|
|
d3 1
|
||
|
|
d35 1
|
||
|
|
a35 2
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.8
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 2
|
||
|
|
a2 2
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1086079146" format="1.0" version="1.8"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussion"}%
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.7
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085766327" format="1.0" version="1.7"}%
|
||
|
|
d9 1
|
||
|
|
a9 1
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
d14 1
|
||
|
|
a14 3
|
||
|
|
Yes. Neither sex nor development stages (is a baby a human species?) are related to the concept of a taxonomic hierarchy. Populations, metapopulations, subspecies, species, genera etc. all reflect evolutionary history, sex and stages don't. Please see the discussion under RankLevelBogosity.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The problem raised in TheProblemOfSex is nevertheless valid and we probably don't have a solution yet!
|
||
|
|
a18 1
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
d20 1
|
||
|
|
a20 1
|
||
|
|
#BlackBorderedBy How should one define a <nop>Character "Margin of Hind Wing Dorsal" of some species(Butterfly)which has the following <nop>State "Black bordered by orange-brown".
|
||
|
|
d29 2
|
||
|
|
a30 2
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
Yes that is what i meant.Thanks. I think i have a better understanding now than i did this morning :) will let you all know when i face any more problems.
|
||
|
|
d33 3
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.6
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1080229112" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
|
||
|
|
d5 1
|
||
|
|
a5 1
|
||
|
|
* StandardNamesForAbundanceStates
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.5
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JacobAsiedu" date="1079054141" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
|
||
|
|
d3 3
|
||
|
|
d8 3
|
||
|
|
a10 1
|
||
|
|
How should one define the <nop>RankLevel of two different sexes of a species. Are they both Species?
|
||
|
|
d21 1
|
||
|
|
d23 1
|
||
|
|
a23 1
|
||
|
|
How should one define a <nop>Character "Margin of Hind Wing Dorsal" of some species(Butterfly)which has the following <nop>State "Black bordered by orange-brown".
|
||
|
|
d35 1
|
||
|
|
a35 2
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.4
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="KevinThiele" date="1079043691" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
|
||
|
|
d27 1
|
||
|
|
d29 2
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.3
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JacobAsiedu" date="1079028503" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
|
||
|
|
d15 2
|
||
|
|
d19 9
|
||
|
|
a27 2
|
||
|
|
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 11 Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1078837182" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
|
||
|
|
d13 5
|
||
|
|
a17 1
|
||
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn, 9. Mar 2004
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1078771963" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
||
|
|
d8 7
|
||
|
|
@
|