It is my understanding that GBIF intends to split the verbatim scientific name and authorship in their processing.<div><br></div><div>So those millions of records will be split.</div><div><br></div><div>They will probably also provide a service that will split the names for you.<br>
<div><br></div><div>This clarification of scientificName just makes this more clear all the way down.</div><div><br></div><div>It also is a better match for how scientific name is used in most publications and related knowledge bases like Wikipedia, NCBI Taxonomy and eBird (probably Wikispecies too).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The parsers will need to look for well formed strings and in the interim they can split it if needed.</div><div><br></div><div>If they are already split it makes it much easier to determine what are correctly formed strings and what are not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This reminds me of the many ways you can format a bibliographic citation. What some people seem to want is</div><div>to have everyone adopt their citation format. What makes more sense it to keep the separate things separate and then combine them into whatever format is needed at the end.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It makes sense for end users to keep the authorship string is a separate field anyway. </div><div><br></div><div>How do they search for all the descriptions that might be tied to same publication etc.?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Chuck Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org">Chuck.Miller@mobot.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Perhaps we need to add a "rule" element as Bob Morris has suggested.<br>
Then with that additional fact, the usage of the other terms would be<br>
specifically declared by the provider and all this<br>
assumption/inferencing would not be needed, where the declaration of the<br>
rule was provided.<br>
<br>
But, millions of rows of legacy data may never conform to anything done<br>
at this point. If the meaning of ScientificName is altered by a<br>
definitional change after 10 years of the DarwinCore term being used<br>
with a different definition, no doubt the end result will be even more<br>
world-wide data hegemony because there will not be a sudden switchover<br>
of all the legacy data to the new definition. That herd of elephants is<br>
not going to turn quickly, so for some long time you really won't know<br>
what you have in a given ScientificName field - the old definition or<br>
the new.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Chuck<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
</div><div class="im">[mailto:<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:04 AM<br>
To: 'Gregor Hagedorn'<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] proposed term: dwc:verbatimScientificName<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> Rich, it is not a question of __formatting__; concatenation is just<br>
> not possible, you have to parse into EVERY name, take it apart,<br>
> determine whether it is an autonym, and if so __insert__ the author at<br>
<br>
> the correct position for botanical names.<br>
<br>
Yes, but that's the responsibility of the provider. Either they have<br>
the information sufficiently atomized to populate verbatimScientificName<br>
appropriately for autonyms, or they just have a pre-formatted<br>
"scientificNameWithAuthorship" (which can go in verbatimScientificName),<br>
or they do not have autonyms appropriately formatted, in which case we<br>
can't really do anything for them.<br>
<br>
Thus, the expected content would be:<br>
verbatimScientificName: Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata<br>
scientificName: Lobelia spicata var. spicata<br>
scientificNameAuthorship: Lam.<br>
<br>
> I understand this is tough on Zoologists :-), but I therefore propose<br>
<br>
Actually, it's the botanists who are making things tough in this case...<br>
:-)<br>
<br>
> verbatimScientificName<br>
> scientificName<br>
> scientificNameAuthorship,<br>
> scientificNameWithAuthorship<br>
><br>
> This covers all cases in my opinion. The comments should express, that<br>
<br>
> scientificNameWithAuthorship should follow allow canonical name rules<br>
> and recommendations of the respective Code.<br>
<br>
I'm still not convinced we need scientificNameWithAuthorship.<br>
<br>
Aloha,<br>
Rich<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>
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><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br><a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> / <a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br><a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div></div>