Hi all,
In the assumption that this discussion is still open: Markus' suggestion below is also what I would have proposed to the questions in the thread.
Markus, my experience with the current field typeStatus is that it is 1) often misinterpreted as only needing the status (and no name) and 2) can be expressed in different ways, which could make it harder to retrieve the information for an aggregator. Is 2 indeed a problem? Is there a need for this information?
Another question: can someone explain the differences between typifiedName and http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/#originalNameUsage? The latter is also present for occurrences.
Cheers,
Peter
Op 9-dec.-2013 om 14:55 heeft Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com het volgende geschreven:
Thanks everyone for the examples, valuable to know these.
The important change to me is that typeStatus becomes cleaner by redefining the scope of that term so that it is narrower and only deals with the status, but not the name or designation reference. In case there are multiple names being typified a multi valued type status alone does not seem to be very useful (needs at least to be paired with the typified name). I would therefore also suggest to remove the list character from the typeStatus definition.
In case of multiple names being typified by a single specimen the identification extension could (should) be used in dwc archives which has the typeStatus and a scientificName. If the new term typifiedName exists it could be also added, but its likely being the exact same as the identified scientificName. http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.xml
Does that sound acceptable to everyone?
best, Markus
On 05 Dec 2013, at 00:00, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
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
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content