Yes, I understand that – as I mentioned.  But what about my question regarding the same specimen being used to typify multiple taxa?

Rich

From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:16 PM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: John R. Wieczorek; TDWG Content Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

I endorse Markus proposal enthusiastically.

What Rich writes is appropriate if you use DwC in a structured way, with Identification instances that support a 1:n relation between specimen and identification instances. However, this cannot be assumed for all uses of DwC.

Gregor

On 4 December 2013 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef@bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

Hmmm.....

This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification class
-- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as an
occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is Identified.
This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really is --
that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a specimen is
*designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification
instance.

Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in an
ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus" field in
their specimen table (rather than in an Identification table), I can
certainly understand the need for this proposed new term.

I guess my main concern/question is:  how to deal with specimens that
represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not necessarily an
Edge-case either)

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
> bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM
> To: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
>
> Dear all,
>
> This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new term,
> typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core issue tracker
> at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197.
> The justification given for inclusion of the term is:
>
> "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific name that
is
> typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how dwc:typeStatus
has
> been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the need to
> express this, but it should better be handled with a term on its own and
> leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The term name itself is
also
> used by ABCD:
> http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603."
>
> The proposal is as follows:
>
> Definition:
> The scientific name that is based on the type specimen.
>
> Comment:
> It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen.
>
> Refines:
>
> Has Domain:
>
> Has Range:
>
> Replaces:
>
> ABCD 2.06:
> DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation
> s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

--

--

---------------------------------
Dr. Gregor Hagedorn
Head of Digital World
Museum für Naturkunde
Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung
Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin
+49 (0)30 2093 8576 (work)
+49-(0)30-831 5785 (private)
gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de
http://linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn

This communication, together with any attachments, is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission may be a violation of copyright or privacy rights.