Project

General

Profile

Bug #2627

Nominal concepts should not overlap Weakley concepts

Added by Michael Lee almost 14 years ago. Updated almost 14 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Immediate
Assignee:
Category:
atlas
Target version:
Start date:
10/27/2006
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Bugzilla-Id:
2627

Description

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.

History

#1 Updated by Michael Lee almost 14 years ago

This bug is originally from "other ideas and observations from Peet and Weakley"

#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?

#3 Updated by Robert Peet almost 14 years ago

I reiterate that I think the definition of the nominal concept should be that concept that includes all the other concepts that are linked to the name in question. Thus, a nominal can never overlap with any other concept that is based on the same name.

#4 Updated by Xianhua Liu almost 14 years ago

fixed

#5 Updated by Robert Peet almost 14 years ago

verified fixed

#6 Updated by Redmine Admin over 7 years ago

Original Bugzilla ID was 2627

Also available in: Atom PDF