[Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

[Stephen Thorpe]

Again, I reiterate my main point that the Code is not a logically watertight system, and my understanding of machines is that they would require such tightness. We can automate nomenclature only either by changing the Code or by making a lot of arbitrary data management decisions which go beyond what the Code determines. Either way, it would require high levels of coordination and consensus between all concerned, which on sociological grounds I find unlikely!

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Croft [jim.croft at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2009 6:38 p.m.
To: dipteryx at freeler.nl
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

I agree Paul, at least in part. The purpose behind what we do is communication.

By trying to express and represent taxonomy in formal, and some might
say inflexible, database terms, we are finding out that our practice,
conventions and indeed the Codes, are not as rigourous as we may have
thought them to be.

It would be nice to think that as we look at harmonizing the *codes,
the proposed Biocode and perhaps even the Phylocode, we would do it in
a way that would facilitate unambiguous representation in electronic
information management systems.

jim

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
> Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Stephen Thorpe
> Verzonden: za 5-9-2009 7:10
>
>> [...] This is fine, except that it does pose something of a problem
>> to the prospects of automated databases. Because of the nature of a
>> machine, it will require a single, perfectly spelled out
>> disambiguation of the Code ...
>
> ***
> Again, the reversal! The problem is not with the Code, but with
> the database. Your approach keeps reminding me of the aforism:
> "Man, the only creature intelligent enough that the purpose of
> evolution is the computer"
>
> I quite admired the post of Richard Pyle in response to Roger Ham's
> blog, emphasizing that bioinformatics should have the intent to help
> rather than to take over:
> "I think that the purpose of taxonomy is to produce a system that
> people can actually use to *communicate with each other*."
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here