122 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
122 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.4;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
date 2007.01.29.16.35.33; author RicardoPereira; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.3;
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
date 2005.11.03.20.07.03; author RichardPyle; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.2;
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2005.10.31.14.08.29; author RicardoPereira; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2005.10.31.14.08.09; author RicardoPereira; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@
|
|
.
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@%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.
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
log
|
|
@Added italics to gensu and species names
|
|
.
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
d8 12
|
|
a19 12
|
|
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_
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@
|
|
.
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d9 10
|
|
a18 10
|
|
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
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@Initial revision
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@a4 4
|
|
---+++ What Name Units to Assing Identifiers?
|
|
|
|
RichardPyle on mailing list:
|
|
|
|
@
|