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

[David Remsen (GBIF)]

Tony

Why isn't this something the GNI would address?  I don't see the  
problem with DwC.   What is scientificNameAuthor supposed to be used  
for if it isn't to store the authorship information from a scientific  
name?

If we really need to make strict distinctions and can't deal with just  
the two name parts,  then the logical new term needs to be  
scientificNameVerbatim or scientificNameWithAuthorship,  not canonical  
name.

David

On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:11 AM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>  
wrote:

> Hi David, all,
>
> It is also important to follow the trail of how the name information  
> then gets passed on to other systems e.g. harvested into GNI etc. My  
> impression is that currently, if dwc:scientificName holds a sciname  
> without authorship and the latter information is put into  
> dwc:scientificNameAuthor, then the version that is harvested into  
> GNI (presuming that happens) loses the authority information, which  
> is definitely a bad thing...
>
> Cheers - Tony
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Remsen (GBIF) [mailto:dremsen at gbif.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:00 PM
>> To: Richard Pyle
>> Cc: David Remsen (GBIF); Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart);  
>> m.doering at mac.com;
>> Chuck.Miller at mobot.org; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; dmozzherin at eol.org
>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in
>> DwCscientificName: good or bad?
>>
>>> The thing that concerns me about 3a is the conditional definition of
>>> scientificName (i.e., it excludes authorship when that information  
>>> is
>>> pre-parsed, but includes it when it's not pre-parsed).
>>
>> right.  That is where we are today.  We need to test the contents
>> every time.   One thing we are developing requirements for is a
>> DarwinCore Archive "Normaliser" which would be a web service/web app
>> client  that can accepted a DwC-A as input and would output the same
>> data as a new DwC-A that conforms to a set of rules based on those
>> requirements.  So one thing would be to parse the names into the
>> authorship field for simpler consumption.
>>
>>> The thing that concerns me about 3b is that scientificName is
>>> (supposedly?)
>>> required; so if someone with unparsed information provides
>>> scientificNameWithAuthorship, then are they supposed to leave
>>> scientificName
>>> blank?
>>
>> The short answer is yes,  they would leave it blank.  if they could
>> parse it then they would have put the parts into name and author
>> elements in the first place.   I also think the inverse is true.  If
>> it is already split and they put it into name and author fields -  
>> they
>> won't concatenate and put a new, merged copy into a name+authorship
>> field.
>>
>> In regard to the requirement confusion - either we keep
>> dwc:scientificName alone and have a simple requirement test or we add
>> a new term and make it a conditional requirement.  My point was,  if
>> we add a new term,  then the set (scientificNameWithAuthorship,
>> scientificName, scientificNameAuthorship) is more clear than
>> (canonicalName, scientificName, scientificNameAuthorship)
>>
>> DR
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>