Thanks!
dwc:occurrenceID=BPBM-13492 dwc:collectionCode=BPBM dwc:catalogNumber=13492 dwc:scientificName=Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner 1933 dwc:acceptedTaxon=Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904)
Actually, according to the current definitions, you would need to split up scientificName into:
dwc:scientificName=Centropyge flavicauda dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Fraser-Brunner 1933
..which is a bit out of phase with:
dwc:acceptedTaxon=Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904) [allowed by the current definitions]
One of my suggestions would be to treat these in a consistent fashion; something like:
scientificName scientificNameAuthorship acceptedName acceptedNameAuthorship
if I understand you correct the orignal name is the one for the accepted name. So I cannot state this in the above record, as it would mean the original name of C. flavicauda
Right -- that's another one of the things I'm getting at. Does originalName apply to what it is identified as, or does it apply to the acceptedTaxon? If they are different, then which one is implied by the originalName? I gather from your statement above that they apply explicitly to the scientificName (not acceptedTaxon), so that should probably be explicitly indicated in the definitions.
I would have to create another taxon record:
dwc:scientificName=Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904) dwc:acceptedTaxon=Centropyge fisheri (Snyder 1904) dwc:originalName= Holacanthus fisheri Snyder 1904
Right -- so presumably these would be returned by resolving scientificNameID that is included on the specimen record, and would not themselves be included within the resultset for the specimen record. In other words, the specimen record would give me scientificNameID, and resolving that ID would give me the three pieces of information you list above -- correct?
The problem here is that I dont think it is a good idea to mix occurrence and taxon records in one dataset.
Agreed!! That's actually the real point I was heading towards. We need the terms, and I think they all belong in dwc, but we need to be clear to people in what context those terms should be used. It's not clear to me how the data providers will know which terms to populate for occurrence records, and which are intended only for taxon name records. Is there some sort of specification within DwC that makes this distinction? My apologies for cluttering the list if it exists, and I simply missed it.
But they could easily be separate datasets for specimen and taxa.
Also you could use ID terms instead of the verbatim one, which is less error prone and cleaner to grasp:
Yes, exactly.
Aloha, Rich
P.S. I am perfectly happy to do the work on writing the definitions, but I don't want to do that if I misunderstand the intended purpose of these terms.