Hi Bradley,

Actually....yes I would. I think it was at the TDWG meeting in Christchurch when a bunch of us data nerds from both the zoology camp and botany camp got together in a room to hammer out Taxon Name stuff, and it was mind-boggling how difficult the conversation was due to these subtle but critical differences in vocabulary between the disciplines. If even the taxonomy-based data nerds had so much trouble communicating with each other, you can imagine how hard it was to explain all this stuff to a non-taxonomist coder.

I've always wanted to build a dictionary of unnecessarily confusing terms in our domain. The obvious ones are "species", "name", "valid", etc. But once you throw in the IT domain, a whole new suite of confusing & homonymous terms emerge ("Class", "Type", "Natural Key", "Identification", etc.)

Indeed: http://www.bionomenclature.net/

And, in particular: http://www.bionomenclature.net/documents/NOMGLOSS_2010_FINAL.pdf

Table 1, on pp. 17-18, is particularly helpful.

Aloha, Rich

This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may
be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or
copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received
this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by
collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not
necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List Taxa...@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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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