AccordingTo is a optional element of TaxonConcept. How it can be optional? There must be a source where the name used. Could someone give me an example where AccordingTo to be empty, even though Name is non empty. Only situation I can imagine is randomly generated NameSimple by a database itself, but even with this case AccordingTo should represent the database itself. -- JamesYtow 06-Sep.-2004

It is only optional for practical reasons - we see at least a name and an AccordingTo as required - but because so many people required the ability to transfer GUIDS not data, the simplest way of making the schema was to allow empty elements without any content to be transferred. You cant easily put such rules in a schema -without creating different types etc, so any enforcement would be by local business or processing rules. TrevorPaterson 06 Sept

Another reason to have it optional is that some concepts (such as vernacular or nomenclatural) don't have a (single) source. They are a superset of whatever concepts have used that particular name. --RobertKukla 06/09/2004

GUID-only data could be exceptional cases because it is implementation of indirect pointers in essence; I can understand it even though GUID of concept is unclear for me. On the other hand, I do not understand 'a concept with multiple sources' because there must be someone who decided these entries should be mapped to the single concept. The data entry should be attributed to the decider via AccordingTo element. The superset must be given by someone who decided that it is a superset of these concepts, even if the decider is a trasmission engine. -- JamesYtow 06-Sep.-2004

It really depends on the context if GUID only data is useful or not. It was explained to us that it would be useful in the SEEK context.

As for 'multi source concept': a vernacular name can form a concept. A 'proper' concept (with AccordingTo) can (as part of its definition) say that it is linked to a vernacular concept by some sort of relationship.

Aggregate concepts have an AccordingTo, but Nomenclatural don't. --RobertKukla 6/9/2004

I do not understand how a vernacular name can be a multiple source concept. An AccordingTo gives a context where the TaxonConcept appeared. Each usage of a vernacular name should have each context. Each TaxonConcept under a vernacular name should be attributed to an AccordingTo where the TaxonConcept is specified, even only by the name itself. A relationship between a vernacular name and a concept, based on another name, should be given in an AccordingTo. If Nomenclatural concept (?) is a result of application of a Code to taxonomic works, it should have AccordingTo which could be either a 'publication' or Code itself. If 'Nomenclatural' concept is a nominal one, there should be an AccordingTo where the name was used. -- JamesYtow 06-Sep.-2004

This is a quote from the documentation: "nomenclatural concept: A concept holding purely nomenclatural information, any relationships held will be to similar nomenclatural concepts. It (implicitly) covers all concepts that ever used the particular name. A special case of this is a vernacular concept." In our model the direction of the relationship would be the other way round from what you describe - if someone creates a concept, it can reference a nomenclatural concept as part of the concepts definition. People can also establish RelationshipAssertions that include nomenclatural concepts, although some relationship types won't make sense (nomenclatural concepts are very ill defined). --RobertKukla 07/09/04

I do not understand why AccordingTo is disallowed for Nomenclatrual concept. If a type specimen is specified to the Nomenclatural concept, then there must be a place where the type was specified. It should be content of AccordingTo of a Nomenclatural concept. I also do not understand why vernacular name is a special case of Nomenclatural concept. -- JamesYtow 07-Sep.-2004

There is no enforcement provided in the schema for what is specified for any 'type' of concept. Therefore a type specimen can be specified for what might be labelled as a nomenclatural concept (indeed the rules of nomenclature imply that any scientific name has a type specimen). We at Napier believe that names are unlikely ever to be used without a context (that is they, do have an AccordingTo) however, many/most other people tell us that you can have a bare name concept existing somewhere in space unattached to a usage (i.e. without an AccordingTo) we recognize and allow this.
Vernacular names are the weakest type of concept possible - they are generally completely undefined in any scientific sense. Better concepts will point at these poor vernacular concepts with the relationship 'has vernacular'. Possibly some people might want to define the relationship the other way, 'is vernacular for'. -- TrevorPaterson 080904

Small addition to Trevor's comments: AccordingTo is not disallowed as such for nomenclatural concepts, it just doesn't make sense (to us at least) to have it, as a n.c. is the superset of many peoples opinions. I understand from you text that you want to use the person who created the name (and assigned the type specimen) in the AccordingTo - this information is captured in the original concept (@type=original). --RobertKukla 8/9/04

But the document says 'disallowed' for Nomenclatural concept.

Some vernacular names are well defined because each of them is simultaneously introduced with a valid scientific name accompanying sufficient description. Do not make over-generalisation. -- JamesYtow 08-Sep.-2004

I think we have a different understanding of vernacular name here (stored as non-scientific). To me it is something like "daisy" - a term that people have used for various things over time and that is not well defined.

I understand in your interpretation it is a new (more or less unique) text string (like a serial number) assigned to the concept by the author. But even then isn't it enough to record that fact in the relationship from the original concept (which has the accordingTo) and (implicitly) allowing other people to use the name? The only other reason I can see is to credit the invention of the name to someone. --RobertKukla 08/09/04

Vernacular name: is there any better word/phrase represent names in lauguages not under Codes which can range from fine as species name to coarse as 'plat' or even 'living things'?

I don't see clear distinction between species name under another Code and species name in different languages, so if we use implicit AccordingTo for vernacular names then we should use it also for ambiregunal names. Do you use implicit AccordingTo also in case of ambiregunal name? In this case, the question is which Code has the priority. Of course we can't answer this question generally, hence we should have AccordingTo in records under other Codes also, and hence in other languages also.

There are situations where two or more vernacular species names are assigned to a single species name under a Code. We need AccordingTo for these vernacular species names. I suggest to change the taxon concept table in the document to allow AccordingTo to Nomenculatural concepts, althogh the document says 'might'.

The schema file says AccordingTo is "sense (i.e. secundum, sensu)". Secundum or sensu, if a name N in a context has both? Such use happens in revisonal work (R0) comparing previous revisonal works (R1, R2, ...). I understand that the TCS model analyse it as TC0 of name N in R0 refereing to TCi in Ri where i is positive. Here R0 is 'secundum' while TCi are 'sensu'. So AccordingTo should be 'secundum' but not 'sensu'. Is it right understanding? -- JamesYtow 08-Sep.-2004

There seems to be no agreed rules for sec. and sensu across the different codes - therefore it is best to avoid them.....

It still seems to me that it is rare for vernacular names to be used in taxonomic contexts for defined concepts. I think it is probably better model the relationship between a defined concept and a vernacular name as having an AccordingTo, rather than define a vernacular AccordingTo.........--TrevorPaterson 090904

What I said is that we shouldn't disallow Nomenclatural concept to have AccordingTo becase there are cases necessary. I do not mean each NC should have AccordingTo. (Fine) Vernacular names are commonly used in non-western language in taxonomic context because it is uneasy to read mixture of western and non-western language, and such vernacular names can be more stable than scientific names under Codes. Also note that the original description may be written in any language (at least in ICZN). -- JamesYtow 09-Sep.-2004