Parent Term Revision Suggestion

[ben-norton]

Term: parent
Class: TaxonConcept
Submitted By: Ben Norton [email protected]

General Recommendations

1. Although the context is clear, the term parent may be too broad. Adding a qualifier to both terms to indicate that the value should be a concept within a taxonomic hierarchy such as parentConcept
2. Currently, the definition for parent is 'The direct parent in a classification'.
   The term shouldn't be used in the definition whenever possible (although this can be quite hard at times, I had to define color recently).
   Does this include the subsidiary ranks, such as superfamily or suborder? I recommend rewriting the definition to eliminate the use of parent and clarify the key/subsidiary rank question.
   An alternate definition similar to 'The taxon concept belonging to the rank that is the direct ancestor of the current concept in a taxonomic hierarchy".
3. Statements should not be repeated in the notes and usage fields.
4. Suggested addition to the usage notes: "In a taxonomic classification hierarchy, each concept may only have one and only one parent except for the root node. Therefore, a taxon concept should only have one parent value. The parent rank may be a key or subsidiary rank."

[nielsklazenga]

Thanks @ben-norton,

1. I prefer just 'parent' and 'child'. I think they are unambiguous, as it is obvious that parents and children have to be of the same class. Also, the 'parent' property might be on the Taxon Concept, which is ontologically correct, but it might be practical to use it on the Taxon Name as well (not sure that is an argument). Other people might think differently though, so let's discuss further and we'll do a poll in the end.
2. Agreed, will do. Not sure how to do it yet, maybe 'immediate higher taxon concept in a hierarchical classification'. This should be further discussed once it is done, as while I agree that self-referencing definitions should be avoided, the terms 'parent' and 'child' are very well understood, so avoiding them might make the definition less clear. I think that the question of the principal vs secondary ranks should not be in the definition, as the rank of the parent (or child) does not come into it and even hierarchical classifications do not have to be ranked (but we can add a note to that extent).
3. Agreed, will check this out.
4. Nice, thanks, I will add that.