Markus and I wanted to try to consolidate the issues related to the current use and definition of scientificName that have been the focus of last weeks discussion in as simple a way as we can and leave it with a simple proposal which we will add to the issue tracking on the project site.
1. We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the existing definition for dwc:scientificName and 2. dwc:scientificName follow the more accepted convention that is better represented by the earlier proposed definition for Canonical Name
The intention is to enable data publishers to distinguish unparsed, complex scientific names from more cleanly separated scientific name data. This will relieve consumers of these data from testing each instance of a name for one of these two conditions.
Here are the definitions for the two existing terms that have been part of the discussion:
dwc:scientificName - The full scientific name, with authorship and date information if known. When forming part of an Identification, this should be the name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term should not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term.
dwc:scientificNameAuthorship - The authorship information for the scientificName formatted according to the conventions of the applicable nomenclaturalCode.
Here are terms and definitions used in the following 5 source data configurations we came up with. They don't have to be exact for this purpose.
canonical name - The nomenclatural components of a scentific name without authorship information. authorship - the authorship information that follows a scientific name verbatim name - the verbatim text stored in a source database when it differs from or combines the two definitions above. This is a bit more broad than the def for scientificName.
We identified the following configurations in a source database and how they would be mapped to the existing terms. In cases 4 and 5 we also propose how we would map these were there a 3rd available term (called 'mapping b:')
When a source database contains:
1. canonical names only
Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName
2. canonical name and authorship in two fields
Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName / authorship-
dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
3. verbatim name only
Mapping: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName
4. all three: canonical name, authorship, and verbatim name in 3 diff. columns
Mapping a: verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName / authorship-
dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
Mapping b: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName / authorship-
dwc:scientificNameAuthorship / verbatim name ->
dwc:verbatimScientificName
5. a mix of canonical and verbatim names in a single column
Mapping a: verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:scientificName
Mapping b: verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:verbatimScientificName
Summary - with the current two terms are left with no choice but to support both canonical and verbatim names in a single term, which makes consuming these data difficult.
We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the existing definition for dwc:scientificName and that dwc:scientificName follow the more accepted convention that is better represented by the definition for Canonical Name
Best, David Remsen / Markus Döring