[Taxacom] globalnames?

[Stephen Thorpe]

>GNI calls it "normalized"
So, the name according to GNI is what I call the binomial (or trinomial for subspp., etc.) The name according to me is what GNI calls the normalized name string. So the Code not only regulates names, but also normalized name strings, and if in a database (or similar, like Wikispecies) I write:

Name: Aus bus (Linnaeus, 1758)

I really mean:

Normalized name string: Aus bus (Linnaeus, 1758)

or

Name: Aus bus

and the whole task being undertaken is to make computers be able to recognise when two orthographically different name strings refer to the same (nominal?) species, without having any understanding of the underlying taxonomy!

>That sure would be nice!  When do you think you could have it ready for us?
Sometime before you have your launch party! :)

Stephen
1st post of day, part 1, subsection 1a(i)

________________________________________
From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2009 9:56 p.m.
To: Stephen Thorpe; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] globalnames?

> How many names? Ambiguous question! Do you mean how many
> binomials, how many epithets, or how many nominal species???

Yes, that was *exactly* my point. (Not to mention the bane of my existence
-- at least in this sphere of my endeavors).

> >> Leaving this aside, authorship is emphatically not part of
> the scientific name.
> >I don't think anybody disputes this
> I did!

Sorry.  I should have said "Most people don't dispute this."

> as if it were a unit. What else are you going to call that
> unit? ... the correct form of the name string???

GNI calls it "normalized".

> A good first step at harnessing information technology to
> create the ultimate taxonomic database would be to get the
> basics done FIRST - like a simple list of nominal species in
> their original combinations, or a list of "currently accepted
> species", Species2000 style, if that is well defined? Heck,
> even some sort of structured comprehensive generic list would
> be a great start!

That sure would be nice!  When do you think you could have it ready for us?
(I'll leave this one for Dave Remsen -- particualrly in terms of the AGI)

Rich