| Line 7 was replaced by line 7 |
| - !!__Example 1 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample1.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 1 - no concept reuse [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample1.jpg]__ |
| Line 13 was replaced by line 13 |
| - So, to sum up, there are three possible sorts of relationships here: |
| + So, to sum up, there are __three possible sorts of relationships__ here: |
| Line 15 was replaced by line 15 |
| - (1) internally, rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone (not shown) → Carya sec. Stone (shown)); |
| + __(1)__ internally, __rejected (shallow) concepts to accepted (deep) concepts__ (e.g. Hicoria sec. Stone (not shown) → Carya sec. Stone (shown)); |
| Line 17 was replaced by line 17 |
| - (2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and |
| + __(2) vertical relationships among accepted concepts__ (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → C. ovata sec. Stone); and |
| Line 19 was replaced by line 19 |
| - (3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). |
| + __(3) lateral relationships among accepted concepts__ (e.g. Carya sec. Stone → Carya sec. Manning). |
| Line 25 was replaced by line 25 |
| - !!__Example 2 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample2.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 2 - low-level reuse [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample2.jpg]__ |
| At line 33 added 1 line. |
| + |
| Line 36 was replaced by line 37 |
| - !!__Example 3 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample3.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 3 - reshuffling, parents [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample3.jpg]__ |
| Line 44 was replaced by line 45 |
| - !!__Example 4 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4a.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 4 - ost./int. separation [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4a.jpg]__ |
| Line 58 was replaced by line 59 |
| - What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy is supposed to indicate that their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc. Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
| + What I’ve done here is also in Figs. 7-10 and in Table 4 of the manuscript. The disconnect between the lines in the hierarchy is supposed to indicate that their referential extensions are entirely specified through their properties, i.e. the solid rectangles. The lines basically don’t count. __Stone has been given a choice here to use only a part of Manning’s full definition of Juglandaceae, the part that talks about the shapes of walnuts, their unique leaves and floral organ arrangements, etc.__ Under that purely intensional definition, Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997) is subsumed under Manning’s (1978) Juglandaceae concept (and GUID 100), even though Manning never saw or mentioned Cyclocarya. Manning’s property-based definition is still useful and precise enough after Cyclocarya had been discovered - or at least that’s what Stone wants to express. |
