So, if I understand the context properly from John's point below,
"typifiedName" would be effectively redundant to typeStatus within the
context of an instance of dec:Identification; with the former used in "flat"
cases where the basis of record is an Occurrence/Specimen; and the latter
would be used (in conjunction with typeStatus) in cases when data are
provided in more structured form.

I guess I don't have any problem with this (there are other redundancies
within DwC, such as the higher rank taxon name fields and
higherClassification within the Taxon class).

But I still think there would need to be some guidance on how to deal with
cases where a single specimen might have multiple type designations (and
multiple typeStatus values, as is the case in the two examples I sent
earlier).  Note that the definition of typeStatus already accommodates
multiple values:
"A list (concatenated and separated) of nomenclatural types (type status,
typified scientific name, publication) applied to the subject."

Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to define typifiedName in the same
way.

Aloha,
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: gtuco.btuco@gmail.com [mailto:gtuco.btuco@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of John Wieczorek
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:04 AM
To: Chuck Miller
Cc: Eades, David Cluthe; Markus Döring; Richard Pyle; TDWG Content Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

...and if so, could the Darwin Core Identification History extension
(http://tools.gbif.org/dwca-
validator/extension.do?id=http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Identification)
be an appropriate and sufficient mechanism to share multiple type
designation?

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller@mobot.org>
wrote:

Nomenclaturally, there are certainly specimens that are the type for

multiple names.  And there are specimens that may be physically annotated
with multiple type names on them.

But, I think for Markus' purposes, the issue is whether  there are

examples

of a specimen data exchange record that includes multiple values for
typifiedName.  Is there anyone who is or needs to include multiple
typifiedNames in their specimen data exchange records, particularly with
GBIF?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Eades, David
Cluthe
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:49 AM
To: Markus Döring; Richard Pyle
Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

The Orthoptera Species File contains many examples of one specimen as

type for multiple names.  One example:

Burmeister, 1838 designated a specimen a syntype of Xiphidium

glaberrimum.

Vickery & Johnstone, 1974 designated the same specimen as lectotype of

Xiphidum glaberrimum and as neotype of Orchelimum cuticulare Serville
1838.  This was done to settle any ambiguity about the synonymy.

David Eades


-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Markus
Döring
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:09 AM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

Rich, do you have examples of a specimen being the (current) type of

multiple names?

I was looking for these but could not find any. As the GBIF data coming

in is

flat we obviously only see simple cases and I'd be interested to study the
more complex ones.

Markus


On 04 Dec 2013, at 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef@bishopmuseum.org>

wrote:

Hmmm.....

This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification
class
-- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as
an occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is

Identified.

This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really
is -- that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a
specimen is
*designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification
instance.

Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in
an ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus"
field in their specimen table (rather than in an Identification
table), I can certainly understand the need for this proposed new term.

I guess my main concern/question is:  how to deal with specimens that
represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not
necessarily an Edge-case either)

Aloha,
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-
bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM
To: TDWG Content Mailing List
Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

Dear all,

This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new
term, typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core
issue tracker at

https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197.

The justification given for inclusion of the term is:

"Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific
name that

is

typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how
dwc:typeStatus

has

been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the
need to express this, but it should better be handled with a term on
its own and leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The
term name itself is

also

used by ABCD:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603."

The proposal is as follows:

Definition:
The scientific name that is based on the type specimen.

Comment:
It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen.

Refines:

Has Domain:

Has Range:

Replaces:

ABCD 2.06:

DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignatio

n s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content