So....how does one represent a record that is both a NomenclaturalAct *and* a TaxonomicAct at the same time (as I said, virtually all of the former also constitute the latter)? Perhaps this is the solution that I've been looking for a while now -- that is, the basisOfRecord in this case is not really the "basis of the record" (I would describe the basis of the record as a TaxonNameUsage); but rather represents something more like "basis of representation". That is, if a single TaxonNameUsage instance both carries a NomenclaturalAct and represent a TaxonomicAct, then the basisOfRecord could distinguish which of the two "things" that the specific record is intended to represent. If basisOfRecord=NomenclaturalAct, then metadata elements would include all the nomenclatural bits associated with the record (e.g., various Code-governed events, etc.). If basisOfRecord=TaxonomicAct, then the metadata elements would include things like classification, synonymy, included non-name-bearing specimens, etc. In other words, the "thing" is the same in both cases (i.e., a TaxonNameUsage instance), but the difference would be which aspect of that thing the record is intended to represent.
I suspect strongly that the preceding paragraph makes almost no sense whatsoever to anyone other than me (and I'm not even sure I understand it).
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Gregor Hagedorn Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:44 PM To: Blum, Stan Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; Vishwas Chavan (GBIF); Steve Baskauf Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore andDublinCoreusageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
I can't remember where, maybe in one of Rich's examples, I
thought I saw the basisOfRecord for a taxonName designated as: "NomenclaturalAct". I thought that was both correct and precise. Similarly, I think the basis of a taxon record should be a "TaxonomicAct", i.e., a published description or reclassification.
I would favor it, because keeping recordClass versus resource type better separated. "NomenclaturalAct", "TaxonomicAct" would be dcterms:type =event, for unpublished acts or dcterms:type=text for published acts. In fact in this case, the dcterms:type would no longer be redundant.
Gregor _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content