<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Upon re-read of your post I see that taxonAccordingTo has been retained. Therefore I can interpret taxonPublication to simply be a change in the name of namePublishedIn.</div><div><br></div><div>I have worked up various examples using the terms in combination with some extensions we (Markus and I) have been drafting. They are listed below with comments. Note that given the instability around the taxon identifier names they might not be congruent with the current terminology.</div><div><br></div><div>Euro+Med Example (<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tnoVriNunOOMzYp709vtauQ&output=html">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tnoVriNunOOMzYp709vtauQ&output=html</a>)</div><div><br></div><div>We hit a snag with this example when the source database did not provide identifiers for the misapplied names and we therefore had to manufacture local identifiers for them. In this example namePublishedIn holds the unparsed primary citation and taxonAccordingTo holds the misapplied name reference.</div><div><br></div><div>Peabody Museum Zoological and Botanical Synonyms Example </div><div>Source Document (<a href="http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/PROTEM/TAXSIG/taxonomy_synonyms_examples.pdf">http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/PROTEM/TAXSIG/taxonomy_synonyms_examples.pdf</a>)</div><div>Transformed Document (<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ts5YVtLnXCBvv8X-prpprOg&output=html">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ts5YVtLnXCBvv8X-prpprOg&output=html</a>)</div><div>Transformed Document with Comments (<a href="http://code.google.com/p/gbif-ecat/wiki/GNAsynonymsExample">http://code.google.com/p/gbif-ecat/wiki/GNAsynonymsExample</a>)</div><div><br></div><div>These examples best illustrates my reasoning for the use of the term "taxon Reference" There is a comments part of the wiki that highlights some of the issues I hit.</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, this is a mapping of the DwC terms to the Catalogue of Life Standard Dataset</div><div><a href="http://code.google.com/p/gbif-ecat/wiki/CoL_Comparison">http://code.google.com/p/gbif-ecat/wiki/CoL_Comparison</a></div><div><br></div><div>I refer to a "GNA standard" in this document to refer to our use of the draft terms in combination with other draft terms structured as extensions according to the text guidelines. In this case I used taxonAccordingTo to reference the latest taxonomic scrutiny property of the standard dataset.</div></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre-wrap; "><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Cheers,</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre-wrap;">David</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre-wrap; "><br></span></font></div><div><div>On Aug 25, 2009, at 7:00 AM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Right, that all makes sense now, and is exactly the kind of<br>simplification that was already in place in the Location class, where<br>the locationID refers to the Location as a whole, not some part of it,<br>such as a country in one case or a city in another case. So, I agree,<br>remove the taxonConceptID.<br><br>I've been struggling with trying to come up with a better term name<br>than nameUsage. After reading the arguments again with every<br>alternative I can come up with (scientificName, taxonName, taxon_name,<br>nameAsUsed, nameAsPublished, publishedName, publishedTaxon) I'm not<br>sure I can really do any better for a name that states specifically<br>what you are trying to encompass with that term. Nevertheless, the<br>term seems awkward, especially on first encounter. The terms would<br>have to be very carefully described (but I guess all terms should be).<br>The problem is, I think the same problem with recognizing what the<br>term is for would happen on the second encounter as well ("What was<br>that term for again?"). I don't think that would happen with terms<br>that were more familiar, even if their meaning is broad. To me,<br>"taxon" works, because it could be a name or a concept - exactly what<br>we're trying to encompass.<br><br>So here's what I'd do in an attempt to be clear, concise, and consistent.<br><br>Given that the Class is Taxon (which captures the idea of a name as<br>well as it does a concept), consistency would argue that the id term<br>for a record of the class should be taxonID. The list of terms under<br>this scenario would be:<br>taxonID, acceptedTaxonID, higherTaxonID, originalTaxonID,<br>scientificName, acceptedTaxon, higherTaxon, originalTaxon,<br>higherClassification, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus,<br>subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, taxonRank,<br>verbatimTaxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship, nomenclaturalCode,<br>taxonPublicationID, taxonPublication, taxonomicStatus,<br>nomenclaturalStatus, taxonAccordingTo, taxonRemarks, vernacularName.<br><br>I retained "scientificName " for two big reasons. First, the obvious<br>alternative "taxon" would be too easily confused with the name of the<br>Class "Taxon". Second, scientificName has broad current usage and will<br>immediately suggest the appropriate content for most users. An<br>additional minor reason is that the term contrasts with and is nicely<br>consistent with "vernacularName".<br><br>The rest is all dependent on good definitions. Here are some drafts<br>for new definitions for terms that need them. Please suggest any<br>necessary revisions.<br><br>taxonID: An identifier for a specific taxon-related name usage (a<br>Taxon record). May be a global unique identifier or an identifier<br>specific to the data set.<br><br>acceptedTaxonID: A unique identifier for the acceptedTaxon.<br><br>higherTaxonID: A unique identifier for the taxon that is the parent of<br>the scientificName.<br><br>originalTaxonID: A unique identifier for the basionym (botany),<br>basonym (bacteriology), or replacement of the scientificName.<br><br>scientificName: The taxon name (with date and authorship information<br>if applicable). When forming part of an Identification, this should be<br>the name in the lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined.<br>This term should not contain Identification qualifications, which<br>should instead be supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term.<br><br>acceptedTaxon: The currently valid (zoological) or accepted<br>(botanical) name for the scientificName.<br><br>higherTaxon: The taxon that is the parent of the scientificName.<br><br>originalTaxon: The basionym (botany), basonym (bacteriology), or<br>replacement of the scientificName..<br><br>higherClassification: A list (concatenated and separated) of the names<br>for the taxonomic ranks less specific than that given in the<br>scientificName.<br><br>kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, subgenus,<br>specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet - all unchanged.<br><br>taxonRank: The taxonomic rank of the scientificName. Recommended best<br>practice is to use a controlled vocabulary.<br><br>verbatimTaxonRank: The verbatim original taxonomic rank of the scientificName.<br><br>scientificNameAuthorship, nomenclaturalCode - unchanged<br><br>taxonPublicationID: A unique identifier for the publication of the Taxon.<br><br>taxonPublication: A reference for the publication of the Taxon.<br><br>taxonomicStatus, nomenclaturalStatus, taxonAccordingTo, taxonRemarks,<br>vernacularName - unchanged.<br><br><br>On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, "Markus Döring<br>(GBIF)"<<a href="mailto:mdoering@gbif.org">mdoering@gbif.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">John,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think this is based on the different understanding of the other IDs we are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">having.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If ScientificNameID is purely for the name as the term suggests, I do agree<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with you that taxonConceptID is still needed. But as me and David have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">argued we would prefer a wider definition closer to the originally suggested<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">taxonID (which was turned into scientificNameID at some point). An<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">identifier for anything that is described by the taxonomic terms, let it be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a name, a taxon (concept) or any other use of a name. So the same name<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">effectively can have different IDs if it has been used in different places,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thereby representing different taxonomic concepts. This would make the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">conceptID superflous. If the taxon(Concept)ID is to take on this role and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the scientificNameID is a purely nomenclatural name identifier only, I am<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with you.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">One thing I would like to avoid very much though is that some ID terms would<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">refer to the scientificNameID (like originalNameID) while others like the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">higherTaxonID would reference the taxonConceptID.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think it all becomes a lot simpler if there is a single taxon/nameID for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all purpuses. Similarly I dont think we would want a separate occurrenceID,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">specimenID and fossilID.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Markus<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 25, 2009, at 0:55, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">While thinking further in trying to implement the suggested changes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">another question occurred to me. The recommendation was made in Issue<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#48 to remove taxonConceptID. If it is removed, how would anyone be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">able to capture the proposition that a given specimen was a member of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a circumscription identified by a registered (having a resolvable<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GUID) taxon concept? I pose that one could not, because we would be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">left only with name terms. Unless I'm getting something wrong, I<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">believe this term cannot be removed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Markus Döring<<a href="mailto:m.doering@mac.com">m.doering@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Dear John & DwC friends,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">after finally having time to review the current dwc terms again I came<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">across a couple of issues I'd like to see discussed or even changed. I<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">am working for nearly 1 year now with the new terms during their<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">development, especially with the new and modified taxonomic terms. So<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">far they work very well in practice, but there are a few improvements<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I can think of, mostly related to the latest changes shortly before<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the public review started. I have added them as separate issues to the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">google code site, but list them here in one go. The number of issues<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is larger than I hoped for, but most of them are minor terminology<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">issues for consistency and not touching the core meaning of the terms.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Markus<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#47 rename basionym(ID) to originalName(ID)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=47">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=47</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The intend for this term is really to reflect where a name originally<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">comes from in case it is a recombination. The term basionym is mostly<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">used with botanists and covers only the cases when an epithet remains<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the same, i.e. not replacement names. The best matching, broader term<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">therefore is originalName I think. Changes have to be done to both the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">verbatim name and the ID.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Good examples for synonyms, basionyms, replaced names etc can be found<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in this document:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/PROTEM/TAXSIG/taxonomy_synonyms_examples.pdf">http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/PROTEM/TAXSIG/taxonomy_synonyms_examples.pdf</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#48 remove taxonConceptID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=48">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=48</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The conceptID is intended to state that 2 name usages / potential taxa<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">are the same, even if they use a different name. This is a special<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">case of true concept relations and I would much prefer to see this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">covered in a dedicated extension treating all concept relations,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">especially frequent cases such as includes, overlaps, etc. I am more<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">than willing to define such an extension<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#49 rename scientificNameID, acceptedScientificNameID and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">higherTaxonNameID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=49">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=49</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">no matter what the final term names are I think the 3 ones should be<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">consistent. Originally it was intended to call them taxonID,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">acceptedTaxonID and higherTaxonID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with a loose definition of a taxon, more based on the idea of that all<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">terms here are taxonomic terms and therefore contain taxon in their<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">name. The current version scientificNameID, acceptedScientificNameID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and higherTaxonNameID intends to do the same I believe, but the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">terminology invites people to use them not referring to each other<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">from what I have seen so far in practice.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Concrete recomendations:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#49a replace scientificNameID with nameUsageID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There is the need to uniquely identify a taxon concept with a given<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">name, a name usage. A nameID suggests the name is unique which it isnt<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">if combined with an sec reference aka taxonAccordingTo. A taxonID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggests to refer to a distinct taxon concept. A name usage seems the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">smallest entity and can therefore be used to act as a sort of unique<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">key for names, taxa, taxon concepts or just usages of a name. All<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">other taxonomic dwc ID terms can and should point to a name usage id<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">then. This makes me think if most/all other IDs should reflect this in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">their names, see below.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It could make sense to keep scientificNameID as a ID to the name as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">defined by a nomenclator. But this ID can also be used as a name usage<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">id, so in order to gain clarity I would prefer to have the term removed.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#49b rename acceptedScientificName(ID) to acceptedNameUsage(ID)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this term should point to the name usage that reflects the "accepted"<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">taxon in case of synonyms, no matter if they are objective or<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">subjective. AcceptedScientificName sounds more like a nomenclatural<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">exercise and in accordance with #3 (nameUsageID) the term<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">acceptedNameUsage(ID) would be the best fit in my eyes.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#49c rename higherTaxonName(ID) to higherNameUsage(ID)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in consistency with nameUsage & acceptedNameUsage<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#50 remove recommendation to concatenate multiple values, especially<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for higherTaxonName/higherNameUsage<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=50">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=50</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">similar to originalName or acceptedNameUsage this term is meant to be<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a verbatim pointer to the higher taxon as an alternative way of using<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">higherTaxonNameID. Therefore it should only contain a single name, the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">direct parent, in my eyes. There are also already the 7 mayor ranks as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">separate terms that can be used to express a flattened hierarchy.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I am aware DwC suggests to use concatenated lists in a single term in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">other places, e.g. , but I believe it would be better to keep the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meaning singular and use multiple instances of that term to express<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">multiple values. Dublin Core also recommends to use multiple XML<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">elements for multiple values, see recommendation 5 in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/">http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#51 rename namePublicationID to namePublishedInID<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=51">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=51</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for consistency with namePublishedIn<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">#52 rename (verbatim)scientificNameRank to (verbatim)rank<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=52">http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=52</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to avoid discussions about whether the rank belongs to the name or the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">taxon and also because its nice and short and there is no clash in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">biological terminology.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tdwg-content mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>