Hi Hilmar, all, Actually this is similar to my belief when starting this thread. I think it looks odd because there is a missing implied element, i.e. this would make a lot more sense: dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:canonicalName=Philander opossum dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758 However the element "dwc:canonicalName" does not seem to exist, e.g. not present in http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm - Maybe it should... Regards - Tony ________________________________________ From: Hilmar Lapp [hlapp@nescent.org] Sent: Sunday, 21 November 2010 5:34 AM To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart) Cc: m.doering@mac.com; dremsen@gbif.org; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad? On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:11 PM, <Tony.Rees@csiro.au> <Tony.Rees@csiro.au> wrote:
dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758 dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758
If we have the latter, I don't understand why the author and year needs to be in the former, too, frankly. Doesn't this just complicate our lives unnecessarily? -hilmar -- =========================================================== : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org : ===========================================================