55 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
55 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
|
head 1.2;
|
||
|
|
access;
|
||
|
|
symbols;
|
||
|
|
locks; strict;
|
||
|
|
comment @# @;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.1;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
date 2004.12.10.17.40.13; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next ;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
desc
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@---+!! %TOPIC%
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1102700413" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCore"}%
|
||
|
|
Jerry Cooper, who created the first LC draft writes:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
"I would like to remind everybody of a general point. The Linnaean Core, in my original interpretation, was intended to be a means of exchanging nomenclatural information between nomenclators. I have always been sure it is possible to use a generic TCS model for that purpose. My original issue was that TCS, as originally defined, was not 'tuned' for that purpose and thus carries unecessary excess baggage and, in addition, would require a greater number of validation checks
|
||
|
|
(applied from outside TCS) in order to ascertain nomenclatural consistency (e.g the set of homotypic synonyms must have the same basionym etc). In my mind there is no absolute right or wrong way here - it is a matter of applying Occam's razor to a spectrum of potential solutions from the context of a particular data-user community. The nomenclatural community should be able to produce a tight, clean, self-consistent data exchange standard for its own purposes and in my opinion Occam's razor dicates that may be preferable to overloading a general-purpose exchange schema. It would be preferable if LC could become subsumed within TCS but maybe it can't or shouldn't. We may have to agree to disagree. I can't help falling back on my physics roots here. We may end up with a spectrum through quantum theory to relativity
|
||
|
|
to newtonian mechanics - all of which adequately explain the motion of objects under certain conditions within the context of a certain information-user community. If you are attempting to describe the effect of Beckham's boot on a football then it doesn't make any sense to frame the problem within the context of relativity or quantum theory.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Jerry
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Jerry Cooper PhD
|
||
|
|
Landcare Research
|
||
|
|
PO Box 40, Lincoln 8152
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 2
|
||
|
|
@
|