Remove traditionalSynonymyRelationshipType property #206
Conversation
nielsklazenga
commented
Nov 7, 2022
nielsklazenga
commented
- create GitHub issue (property:traditionalSynonymyRelationshipType #205)
- create notes, as existing notes were from relationshipType
- make property not required ('required' came from relationshipType as well)
- create GitHub issue (#205) - create notes, as existing notes were from relationshipType - make property not required ('required' came from relationshipType as well)
|
It would have been better if I had not added the updated markdown/html to the PR. Will not do that anymore in following PRs. |
master/tcs.yaml
Outdated
| Relationship Type Vocabulary. In the case of Taxon Concept Relationships | ||
| from traditional synonymy, the `relationshipAccordingTo` is the same as the | ||
| `accordingTo` of the Taxon Concept that is the `subjectTaxonConcept`. | ||
| This term should be used together with `relationshipType` (which is required |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... so I can't remember the discussions about this that clearly. The relevant GH discussion seems to be in #65, in particular a potential disagreement (between @Archilegt and you) about whether synonyms should be properties of names or TCs. I agree with you that to make a synonymy statement one must have a TC to work with, and in general the most accurate way to encode synonymy is using TC intersects TC. But... in practice most synonymy statements have no "sec." for the names so they appear to be properties of names. Have we discussed writing any general guidance for users which would allow/encourage TC name X; accordingTo NULL? I.e., forcing a name to be a concept, but with unknown TaxonTreatment. If we will allow this, then it makes sense to model synonym as a TC property. If this is not allowed, we must make synonymy a property of names, otherwise vast amounts of taxonomy information cannot be correctly encoded.
|
@camwebb , this is not about whether we have the property or not – I'd rather not have it either – but about fixing errors in the text. The property is there with or without this PR, but at the moment it is required and has the notes of |
- term is nor ready to be included yet.
|
@camwebb , I have now added a commit that does what I wanted to do in the first place. |
nielsklazenga
changed the title
nielsklazenga
deleted the
property-traditionalSynonymyRelationshipType
branch
