Hi all,
Now that a "formal" proposal for a new term has been added [1], should this discussion continue here or on the issue tracker? To my knowledge that is the only forum that will be used for a new term when considering if it will get accepted.
I'm, not sure this not applies in this case Simon. Is there really a scenario where you would put something in canonicalScientificName that you *could not* put in dwc:scientificName and would require a new term?
> When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing
> the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field. I
> am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.
I've actually challenged this and believe it is not clearly defined [1], as it does not deal detail what to do when you are filling both, nor how a consumer would deal with apparently conflicting information. While the same is true for dwc:genus etc, this one is *so close* to dwc:scientificName and in many cases could legitimately have the same content, guidelines are going to be needed for consistent use. I fear a repeat of the consumption mess dealing with conflicting abcd:catalogNumber and abcd:catalogNumberNumeric unwittingly being used inconsistently across resources.
> As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I vote for adding it to the standard.
Rod, for the vast majority of names a couple of regular expressions suffice anyway - right? We don't need a new term to deal with the easy stuff, and for the hard stuff this term doesn't help anyway.
>> I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present
>> these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?
Cheers,
Tim
[1 ] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Milestone%20Project%20Reporter%20Summary%20Opened
On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Simon Chagnoux wrote:
> Sure, for prototypes and proof of concept things, edge cases can be left
> apart. But some people and institutions also use Darwin Core for
> exchanging data between big databases. It is a simple and powerful tool
> for that, especially coupled with DwC/A.
>
> When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing
> the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field. I
> am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.
>
> As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I
> vote for adding it to the standard.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
> Le 14/03/2012 20:17, Roderic Page a écrit :
>> Apart from the fact that I can barely bring myself to care about
>> plants ;) I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present
>> these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rod
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tag mailing list
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag