<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>... and we use gna/gbif terms for biostatus which we split in two, occurrenceStatus and nativeness.</div><div>Pretty much all other terms used in this extension are qualifiers providing additional context to name and area:</div><div><br></div><a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&gid=2">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&gid=2</a><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, David Remsen (GBIF) wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>We have a draft Distribution extension that Markus initiated that represents our thoughts in this area. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: 11px; white-space: pre-wrap; "><a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=html">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r4I1G8E7mDIgY_kt9Rxyc8A&output=html</a></span></div><div><br></div><div>DR</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Blum, Stan wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>OK, I think we're in agreement that taxon (concept) attributes could include some kind of summary or assertion about whether its presence in some area is native or otherwise. As Rich says, that may need further thought to be included in DwC in this round. I think there is a strong rationale for having the ability to say the native range of taxon X is footprint Y. Any organism occurrence outside that would characterized (as native, invasive, etc.) by comparison against that footprint. That means...<br><br>The data concept that would best be applied to organism occurrence would be "wasCultivatedOrCaptive" and therefore not representative of viability at the place at that time. Whether a non-cultivated/captive occurrence is native, invasive, naturalized, or ?? remains a comparison to the (a) distribution of the taxon.<br><br>-Stan<br><br>________________________________________<br>From: Kevin Richards [<a href="mailto:RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz">RichardsK@landcareresearch.co.nz</a>]<br>Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:01 PM<br>To: Blum, Stan; <a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu">tuco@berkeley.edu</a><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] biostatus<br><br><snip><br><br>I do believe biostatus applies to Taxon Concepts, not specimens (if that was what you were implying Stan), as you cannot really say that the specimen itself is invasive - it is the concept you have identified it to that can be deemed invasive, surely.<br>_______________________________________________<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></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br>tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>