[tdwg-content] dwc: city to county

"Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering at gbif.org
Wed Aug 26 16:18:46 CEST 2009

One more thing came to my mind just now.
For taxa we have a taxonAccordingTo, shouldnt there also be a  
geographyAccordingTo term to indicate the source of the place names?
That could be pretty useful I would think.

On Aug 26, 2009, at 16:16, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:

> I just realized that there is dwc:higherGeographyID already that fits
> perfectly to hold the city gazeteer ID:
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#higherGeographyID
> so for a location within the city of san francisco we can use:
> dwc:higherGeographyID =tgn: 7014456
> Markus
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 15:41, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
>>>>> Darwin Core is able to transmit Gazetteer IDs for the kind of
>>>>> objects
>>>>> you are talking about (generally called "features" or "named
>>>>> places")
>>>>> that are present in gazetteers. Not only that, gazetteers can have
>>>>> detailed information (georeferences with uncertainties) about
>>>>> places
>>>>> with complex descriptions as well as simple named places.  
>>>>> BioGeoBIF
>>>>> does this, and a Locality service I have long wanted to build has
>>>>> exactly this intention. What Darwin Core can't do is give a
>>>>> gazetteer
>>>>> id for some part of the Location, only for the whole. In other
>>>>> words,
>>>>> it can't do what you want it to do. I don't think Darwin Core
>>>>> should.
>>>>> I think the far better solution is to use universal terms - the
>>>>> spatial data - for the use case you are proposing.
>>>> There is a big difference between city being S. Francisco and the
>>>> location being detail inside of it, and city being S. Francisco and
>>>> the location being 200 km S of it.
>>> Yes, I agree. They are very different. Assuming there was a "city"
>>> term in DwC, I would not want someone to put San Francisco as the
>>> city
>>> if the Location was outside of the city. In other words, no
>>> geographic
>>> term is to be used to represent a "nearest named place", instead,
>>> they
>>> are to be used only to designate containment of the specific place.
>>>> So for the use case where the the detailed location is inside the
>>>> boundaries defined by a gazeetter ID, I am still assuming that DWC
>>>> can
>>>> transmit the data ONLY if no more detailed data are given. Or  
>>>> this a
>>>> misunderstanding?
>>> You understand correctly. Darwin Core can transmit all of the detail
>>> about the place, no matter how specific, but it cannot transmit any
>>> gazetteer id that does not correspond to the whole Location in all
>>> its
>>> detail.
>> Would it hurt to put the gazateer ID into a higher geographic term?
>> for the county of san francisco:
>> dwc:county=TGN:1002859
>> for the city one could use the locality is there is no finer
>> description of the exact place:
>> dwc:locality=tgn: 7014456
>> Remarkably the getty thesaurus also uses similar terms for the
>> geographic hierarchy:
>> http://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNFullDisplay?find=san+francisco&place=city&nation=&prev_page=1&english=Y&subjectid=7014456
>> North and Central America (continent)
>> United States (nation)
>> California (state)
>> San Francisco (county)
>> San Francisco (inhabited place)
>> Well, for a German town this is slightly different:
>> Europe (continent)
>> Germany (nation)
>> Lower Saxony (state)
>> Hannover (national district)
>> Holzminden (inhabited place)
>> If all it takes is to add a dwc:city or dwc:inhabitedPlace term, I
>> think I would second that.
>> Alternatively the most relevant bit apart from the locationID and
>> exact locality is the next higher region that contains the exact
>> location - no matter what rank.
>> Something like a dwc:namedArea
>> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list