[Taxacom] Revision using taxonomic concept approach
nico.franz at asu.edu
Thu Oct 22 18:00:23 CDT 2015
Thank you, Stephen.
Yes, that (yours) would be a more "normalized" syntax, which assumes a
slightly more clever string parsing/reassembly process. A point here was to
do things very rigidly and consistently so that as little as possible is
assumed regarding an interpreter's ability to correctly process the syntax.
If a machine isolated every bit of taxonomic information by the
corresponding and consistently spelled-out taxonomic concept label, almost
everything should land in such a narrow information bin. The RCC-5
articulations reconnect the bins semantically.
See also: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/10/022145
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Looking at this sentence from the abstract:
> 'Prior to this study, Minyomerus sec. O’Brien & Wibmer (1982) contained
> seven species, whereas the monotypic Piscatopus sec. O’Brien & Wibmer
> (1982) was comprised solely of P. griseus Sleeper, 1960 sec. O’Brien &
> Wibmer (1982)'.
> Surely, this is just an overly complicated way of saying:
> 'Prior to this study, Minyomerus contained seven species, whereas the
> monotypic Piscatopus was comprised solely of P. griseus Sleeper, 1960
> (O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982)'.
> Where the O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982 citation in parenthesis is just a regular
> citation for the information expressed in the sentence.
More information about the Taxacom