Relationship Types

• NameRelationships?
• HigherTaxaRelationships
• ContentofRelationships

Potential Relationship Types

GregorHagedorn:

• Lectotypification (this acutally redefines the concept of the name)
• designation of epitype
• validation
• nomen novum
• recombination
• sanctioning (only fungi)
• anamorph/teleomorph relation (fungal terms, but same happens in animals with larval names).

NicoFranz - VI-17-04

• just inserting a very rough outline here; more to follow within the next month
• exclusively dealing with concept relationships; ignoring those among names
• a first distinction would be lateral vs. vertical relationships, i.e. among several vs. within one internally consistent classification scheme

• Koperski et al. (2000) then have 6 types:

  • 1. A & B are congruent (A==B)
  • 2. A is more inclusive than B (A>B)
  • 3. A is less inclusive than B (A<B)
  • 4. A overlaps with B (A><B)
  • 5. A excludes B (A!B)
  • 6. A is "inexactly" (though somehow closely) related to B (A?B)
• Both Koperski et al. (2000) and Geoffroy & Berendsohn (2003) use sets of symbols for these relationships that I (as a creator/user here) wouldn't know how to insert e.g. into the Wiki; I suggest we try to converge on the most widely accessible set of symbols possible, and made a proposal above; the "==" is used because the "=" is already sort of occupied to express name synonymies
• I'd like to see us allow experts (as an option, not a must) to make parallel relationship assessments, based (1) on constituents (child taxa, type specimens) and (2) on properties; (1) is best for computer understanding, (2) is best for human understanding; together they can convey much more information than each can on its own; Koperski et. al (2000) seemingly struggled with this problem; I think the parallel annotation systems, fleshed out properly, are a solution
• Final comment: combined relations should be admissible; example: A>?B - meaning, "most likely A>B, but from the available information it's harder to tell than in other cases"; and so on
• I'll be working on a set of examples very soon so that we can see the ins and out of these relationship-type proposals