Some thoughts on Polyhierarchies

Although the use of poly hierarchies is convincing in theory, in practice it
is likely to create some confusion.

Instead we prefer to have common terms as one hierarchy with organisms as Top
term and taxonomic terms as another hierarchy with some other top term, say
taxonomic terms.

It will be a `ladder' structure with the rungs formed by the `sameAs'
relations. It is almost similar to the original guidelines, but for that now
MORE (two) descriptors are allowed for the same concept.

(Note: common terms hierarchy may not exactly be parallel to the taxonomic
one. There could be some gaps, as in the case of sub order, and sub genus
levels, in which case the sameAs relation doesn't exist)

This seems to be alright from the thesaurus point of view, but we are not
sure how it fits into the concept server and work bench contexts,
particularly when we want to expand the search for all the stem borers.

To achieve this, should we necessarily have all kinds of stem borers as NTs
under stemborers? When they are in different hierarchies also, they can be
brought together by RT relation. If RT relation is not amenable for handling
in the concept server, should we devise any other new relation, say SC (Same
Concept) or ST Same term?

Since at present all the common names and taxonomic names are mixed up, we
would first add and/or link common names to existing taxonomic names, and
taxotomic names to existing common names.