>From harvesting point of view it is a pain to figure out what did author decided to express scientific name and thus<br><br>- scientificName<br>
- scientificName & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- scientificName, taxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- scientificName, verbatimTaxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, taxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, verbatimTaxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship<br><br>is a nightmare to figure intetion of an archive author during the harvest. If there would be 2 terms -- one only for 'canonical name' and one for a name with authorship (if known) I would be much obliged!<br>
<br>Dima<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mdoering@gbif.org">mdoering@gbif.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
What Darwin Core offers right now are 2 ways of expressing the name:<br>
<br>
A) the complete string as dwc:scientificName<br>
B) the atomised parts:<br>
genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, verbatimTaxonRank (+taxonRank), scientificNameAuthorship<br>
<br>
Those 2 options are there to satisfy the different needs we have seen in this thread - the consumers call for a simple input and the need to express complex names in their verbatim form.<br>
Is there really anything we are missing?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
When it comes to how its being used in the wild right now I agree with Dima that there is a lot of variety out there.<br>
It would be very, very useful if everyone would always publish both options in a consistent way.<br>
<br>
Right now the fulI name can be found in once of these combinations:<br>
- scientificName<br>
- scientificName & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- scientificName, taxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- scientificName, verbatimTaxonRank & scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, taxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship<br>
- genus, subgenus, specificEpithet, infraspecificEpithet, verbatimTaxonRank, scientificNameAuthorship<br>
<br>
To make matters worse the way the authorship is expressed is also impressively rich of variants.<br>
In particular the use of brackets is not always consistent. You find things like:<br>
<br>
# regular botanical names with ex authors<br>
Mycosphaerella eryngii (Fr. ex Duby) Johanson ex Oudem. 1897<br>
<br>
# original name authors not in brackets, but year is<br>
Lithobius chibenus Ishii & Tamura (1994)<br>
<br>
# original name in brackets but year not<br>
Zophosis persis (Chatanay), 1914<br>
<br>
# names with imprint years cited<br>
Ctenotus alacer Storr, 1970 ["1969"]<br>
Anomalopus truncatus (Peters, 1876 ["1877"])<br>
Deyeuxia coarctata Kunth, 1815 [1816]<br>
Proasellus arnautovici (Remy 1932 1941)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:50, Roderic Page wrote:<br>
<br>
> I'm with Jm. For the love of God let's keep things clean and simple.<br>
> Have a field for the name without any extraneous junk (and by that I<br>
> include authorship), and have a separate field for the name plus all<br>
> the extra stuff. Having fields that atomise the name is also useful,<br>
> but not at the expense of a field with just the name.<br>
><br>
> Please, please think of data consumers like me who have to parse this<br>
> stuff. There is no excuse in this day and age for publishing data that<br>
> users have to parse before they can do anything sensible with it.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> Rod<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 19 Nov 2010, at 07:06, Jim Croft wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Including the authors, dates and any thing else (with the exception of<br>
>> the infraspecific rank and teh hybrid symbol and in botany) as part of<br>
>> a thing called "the name" is an unholy abomination, a lexical<br>
>> atrocity, an affront to logic and an insult the natural order of the<br>
>> cosmos and any deity conceived by humankind.<br>
>><br>
>> In botany at least, the "name" (which I take to be the basic<br>
>> communication handle for a taxon) is conventionally the genus plus the<br>
>> species epithet (plus the infraspecies rank and the infraspecies name,<br>
>> if present). All else is protologue and other metadata (e. s.l. s.s,<br>
>> taxonomic qualifiers) some of which may be essential for name<br>
>> resolution, but metadata nevertheless. In much communication, the<br>
>> name can and does travel in the absense of its metadata; that is not<br>
>> to say it is a good or a bad thing, only that it happens. I am not<br>
>> saying thi binominal approach is a good thing, in many respects<br>
>> Linnaeus and the genus have a lot to answer for; but it what we have<br>
>> been given to work with.<br>
>><br>
>> in zoology... well, who can say what evil lurks within... but if what<br>
>> you say below is right, at least they got it right with the<br>
>> authorship... ;)<br>
>><br>
>> I think it is a really bad move to attempt to redefine "name" so as to<br>
>> include the name metadata to achieve some degree of name resolution<br>
>> (basically the list of attributes does not end until you have almost a<br>
>> complete bibliographic citation - is author abbreviation enough? no,<br>
>> add the full author surname? no, add the author initials? no, add the<br>
>> first name? no, add the transferring author? no, add the year of the<br>
>> publication? no, add the journal? no, add the article title? no, add<br>
>> the type specimen? no, add the... )<br>
>><br>
>> That is not to say these strings of the name and selected metadata are<br>
>> not useful, perhaps even essential, in certain contexts; only that we<br>
>> should not pretend or declare they are the "name". They are something<br>
>> else and we should find another "name" for them. "Scientific name" is<br>
>> not good enough as a normal person would interpret this as the latin<br>
>> name<br>
>><br>
>> Fortunately I think nearly every modern application keeps all the bits<br>
>> of the name and publication metadata separate in some form, so it is<br>
>> just a matter of geekery to glue them together in whatever combination<br>
>> we might require...<br>
>><br>
>> jim<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, <Tony.Rees@csiro.au> wrote:<br>
>>> Well, that sounds fine to me, however you may note that the ICZN<br>
>>> Code at least expressly states that authorship is *not* part of the<br>
>>> scientific name:<br>
>>><br>
>>> "Article 51. Citation of names of authors.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 51.1. Optional use of names of authors. The name of the author does<br>
>>> not form part of the name of a taxon and its citation is optional,<br>
>>> although customary and often advisable."<br>
>>><br>
>>> I vaguely remember this has been discussed before - would anyone<br>
>>> care to comment further?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers - Tony<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>> From: Markus Döring [mailto:<a href="mailto:m.doering@mac.com">m.doering@mac.com</a>]<br>
>>>> Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010 9:49 AM<br>
>>>> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); David Remsen<br>
>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a> List<br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in<br>
>>>> DwC<br>
>>>> scientificName: good or bad?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sorry if I wasnt clear, but definitely b)<br>
>>>> Not all names can be easily reassembled with just the atoms.<br>
>>>> Autonyms need<br>
>>>> a bit of caution, hybrid formulas surely wont fit into the atoms and<br>
>>>> things like Inula L. (s.str.) or Valeriana officinalis s. str.<br>
>>>> wont be<br>
>>>> possible either. dwc:scientificName should be the most complete<br>
>>>> representation of the full name. The (redundant) atomised parts<br>
>>>> are a<br>
>>>> recommended nice to have to avoid any name parsing.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As a consumer this leads to trouble as there is no guarantee that<br>
>>>> all<br>
>>>> terms exist. But the same problem exists with all of the ID terms<br>
>>>> and<br>
>>>> their verbatim counterpart. Only additional best practice<br>
>>>> guidelines can<br>
>>>> make sure we have the most important terms such as taxonRank or<br>
>>>> taxonomicStatus available.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Markus<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 23:26, Tony.Rees@csiro.au wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first<br>
>>>>> time.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Markus/all,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a<br>
>>>> required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be<br>
>>>> populated<br>
>>>> with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is<br>
>>>> it<br>
>>>> beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well,<br>
>>>> maybe<br>
>>>> with other qualifiers as needed?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it<br>
>>>>> exists<br>
>>>> somewhere and you can just point to it.<br>
>>>>> in other words:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (a)<br>
>>>>> <scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName><br>
>>>>> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> or (b):<br>
>>>>> <scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName><br>
>>>>> <genus>Homo</genus><br>
>>>>> <specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet><br>
>>>>> <scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> if you get my drift...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Regards - Tony<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Tony Rees<br>
>>>>> Manager, Divisional Data Centre,<br>
>>>>> CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,<br>
>>>>> GPO Box 1538,<br>
>>>>> Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia<br>
>>>>> Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)<br>
>>>>> Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)<br>
>>>>> e-mail: Tony.Rees@csiro.au<br>
>>>>> Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, <a href="http://www.obis.org.au/" target="_blank">http://www.obis.org.au/</a><br>
>>>>> Biodiversity informatics research activities:<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm</a><br>
>>>>> Personal info:<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm</a>?<br>
>>>> id=1566<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> _________________<br>
>> Jim Croft ~ <a href="mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com">jim.croft@gmail.com</a> ~ +61-2-62509499 ~<br>
>> <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft</a><br>
>> 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point<br>
>> of doubtful sanity.'<br>
>> - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)<br>
>><br>
>> Please send URIs, not attachments:<br>
>> <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
> ---------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Roderic Page<br>
> Professor of Taxonomy<br>
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine<br>
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences<br>
> Graham Kerr Building<br>
> University of Glasgow<br>
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK<br>
><br>
> Email: <a href="mailto:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk">r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk</a><br>
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778<br>
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792<br>
> AIM: <a href="mailto:rodpage1962@aim.com">rodpage1962@aim.com</a><br>
> Facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192</a><br>
> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/rdmpage" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/rdmpage</a><br>
> Blog: <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://iphylo.blogspot.com</a><br>
> Home page: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" target="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>