Nominal concepts should not overlap Weakley concepts
Continuing on the Sporobolus pinetorum example, there are some problems determining and mapping nominals where the mapping of a specific concept to Weakley involves an overlaps (|) relationship. Because Weakley has the relationship S. pinetorum Weakley | S. teretifolius RAB, the nominal is displayed as S. pinetorum Weakley | S. teretifolius nominal, but in as much as nominals are supposed to be the largest possible interpretation, the relationship should be Weakley < S. teretifolius nominal.
#2 Updated by Xianhua Liu almost 14 years ago
The relationship of Weakley's concept to a nominal concept is inferred based on all possible relationships to the concepts using the same name. Since there is only one relationship: S. pinetorum Weakley | S. teretifolius RAB, the most precise inferring result we can make is S. pinetorum Weakley | S. teretifolius nominal. What do you think?