head	1.7;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.7
date	2007.03.06.17.30.00;	author TWikiGuest;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2004.11.01.09.48.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2004.10.31.10.06.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2004.10.31.06.33.42;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2004.10.31.05.20.29;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2004.10.31.04.58.44;	author NozomiJamesYtow;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2004.10.31.03.31.41;	author RichardPyle;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.7
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@---+!! %TOPIC%

%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099302480" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCoreDefinitions"}%
	* Gregor: For <nop>RankGroup I wonder why you discuss this term. I think since it can be derived from knowledge of the rank, it is not necessary in LC - do you disagree? 
		* Richard: Perhaps, but again I just wanted an unambiguous vocabulary.  The idea of <nop>RankGroup will factor in on discussions related to Code rules.  I think it will be useful in this context to have a term "RankGroup" as a way of expressing a set of ranks with similar Code requirements, separate from the specific *Ranks*. - 30 Oct 2004 HST
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1099217037" from="UBIF.RankGroup" to="UBIF.LCRankGroupDiscussion"}%
@


1.6
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
a2 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099217160" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCoreDefinitionsDiscussion"}%
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099204422" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
d3 3
a5 2
	* Gregor: For RankGroup I wonder why you discuss this term. I think since it can be derived from knowledge of the rank, it is not necessary in LC - do you disagree? 
		* Richard: Perhaps, but again I just wanted an unambiguous vocabulary.  The idea of RankGroup will factor in on discussions related to Code rules.  I think it will be useful in this context to have a term "RankGroup" as a way of expressing a set of ranks with similar Code requirements, separate from the specific *Ranks*. - 30 Oct 2004 HST
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099200029" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
a4 2

-- Main.RichardPyle - 31 Oct 2004
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="NozomiJamesYtow" date="1099198724" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d3 2
a4 2
	* Gregor: For [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#RankGroup][Rank-group]] I wonder why you discuss this term. I think since it can be derived from knowledge of the rank, it is not necessary in LC - do you disagree? 
		* Richard: Perhaps, but again I just wanted an unambiguous vocabulary.  The idea of [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#RankGroup][Rank-group]] will factor
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099193501" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d3 2
a4 2
	* Gregor: For *Rank-group* I wonder why you discuss this term. I think since it can be derived from knowledge of the rank, it is not necessary in LC - do you disagree? 
		* Richard: Perhaps, but again I just wanted an unambiguous vocabulary.  The idea of *Rank-group* will factor
@