Bug #2627
closedNominal concepts should not overlap Weakley concepts
0%
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.
Updated by Michael Lee over 17 years ago
This bug is originally from "other ideas and observations from Peet and Weakley"
Updated by Xianhua Liu over 17 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?
Updated by Robert Peet over 17 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.