The development of the TaxonConceptSchema can potentially fulfill the requirements of number of distinct user communities. However, the requirements of these different users may conflict with each other
Global species databases, list providers, aggregators and portals (Biodiversity Projects) e.g GBIF, IPNI, Species2000 etc.
Working Scientists, biologists, ecologists etc. (e.g. SEEK users)
Working Taxonomists require taxonomically accurate representations of Taxon Concepts
Many users in Group 1 have historically worked exclusively with Names, not Taxon Concepts, and focussed on Name based resolution of data. This situation is currently evolving as the importance of representing the concepts behind names becomes evident. However, some users retain a preferrence for light weight request/response schemas (although a heavy weight standard schema can be used in a light weight fashion if only a few data elements are required).
User Group 2 may not consider taxonomic issues to be important, but purely wish to resolve bare name terms. However, names are nearly always used to represent some underlying/associated concept.
User Group 3 have a deep understanding of taxonomy, nomenclatural rules, typification etc. and demand a comprehensive structured representation of a taxon concept. However, they may still wish to work with bare names and represent realtionships between them, without referring to concepts. (Note: uBio have attempted to solve this problem by separating objective and subjective relationships between names claiming that whereas many aspects of nomenclature are not disputed, taxonomic classifications are inherently unstable, disputed hypotheses).
Are the requirements of the various user groups compatible, or if not which is the most important community to satisfy with this schema.