142 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext
142 lines
3.3 KiB
Plaintext
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
|
|
@
|