Thanks Markus for bringing this up again.

As the discussion is rather long on this issue: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151, I would suggest that you propose infragenericEpithet and genericName as too separate issues (referencing the issue above), with a good definition and good examples.

Than we can get through the motions of having this added to DwC.

What do you think?

Peter

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Markus Döring <mdoering@gbif.org> wrote:

Hi all,
we are currently improving our webservices at GBIF and do hit again the issue about whether dwc:genus represents the genus of the accepted or actually applied scientificName. So far GBIF has used the DWC definition and used dwc:genus as the genus the name had been classified into, i.e. the genus of the accepted name in case of synonyms. We would like to continue with that definition, but there had been requests to also expose the actual parsed name and would like to adopt the previously proposed but never ratified terms dwc:genericName and dwc:infragenericEpithet for this. See http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/2012-March/002882.html for a quick summary of the previous discussions and the issue itself at google code: https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151.

As a backup to the proposal, i4Life / Catalogue of Life are also already using the newly proposed terms in their dwca format.
Can we get an agreement to add those 2 terms to Darwin Core?

best,
Markus


PS: It might be a good oppertunity to also add dwc:strain and dwc:cultivarEpithet
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=144
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=141

_______________________________________________
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