Just re-sending the message
below because it bounced the first time…
Markus/all,
I guess my point is that (as
I understand it) scientificName is a required field in DwC, so the question is
what it should be populated with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet +
authority, then is it beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised
as well, maybe with other qualifiers as needed?
Just looking for an example
"best practice" here - or maybe it exists somewhere and you can just
point to it.
in other words:
(a)
<scientificName>Homo
sapiens</scientificName>
<scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus,
1758</a>
or (b):
<scientificName>Homo
sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName>
<genus>Homo</genus>
<specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet>
<scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus,
1758</a>
if you get my drift...
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees@csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566