[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwCscientificName: good or bad? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org namens Roderic Page
Verzonden: zo 21-11-2010 9:58

[...]
> I think Bob Morris was pointing out, in the vast majority of
> cases biologists use binomials without author names quite 
> happily, and manage to get by just fine. 

***
And so they should, as that is how a system of nomenclature
is designed to work, no matter what Code applies. 
* * *

> For all the potential ambiguity, people will rely on naked 
> scientific names, 

***
The only ambiguity here is that the circumscription / definition 
of the taxon is not mentioned (this is fine where it is 
automatically implied, but often this is not the case).
The nomenclatural author is just a (fleeting) detail, to be
adjusted as needed.
* * *

> [...] so it seems to me to be obvious that anybody 
> exporting data in this area needs to provide a field that 
> contains just the name. Failure to do this makes consuming
> the data harder than it needs to be, and that would be a mistake.

> By all means add additional information in other fields,
> but doesn't

> dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum
> dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758

> pretty much cover what most people need? The vast majority 
> of people consuming data will want just the name, so make
> that front and centre.  The single most important value 
> shouldn't be one people have to construct from the data.

***
It looks that way to me, also.

Paul van Rijckevorsel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101121/e9ca60b3/attachment.html