Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
Yes, I understand that as I mentioned. But what about my question regarding the same specimen being used to typify multiple taxa?
Rich
From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:16 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: John R. Wieczorek; TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
I endorse Markus proposal enthusiastically.
What Rich writes is appropriate if you use DwC in a structured way, with Identification instances that support a 1:n relation between specimen and identification instances. However, this cannot be assumed for all uses of DwC.
Gregor
On 4 December 2013 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/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation 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
As I said, if DwC has to stay flat, the only way is to add the various typification events in a remark field, unless there is duplication of spm record with one identification per record, but I suppose nobody wants that. And then hoping that you can find the specimen by querying through a synonymy system, either developed by the user itself, of by the queried system, e.g., GBIF, eventually through GNA (?).
BW Nicolas.
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle Sent: Wednesday, 2013 December 04 8:20 PM To: 'Gregor Hagedorn' Cc: 'TDWG Content Mailing List' Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
Yes, I understand that - as I mentioned. But what about my question regarding the same specimen being used to typify multiple taxa?
Rich
From: Gregor Hagedorn [mailto:gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:16 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: John R. Wieczorek; TDWG Content Mailing List Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
I endorse Markus proposal enthusiastically.
What Rich writes is appropriate if you use DwC in a structured way, with Identification instances that support a 1:n relation between specimen and identification instances. However, this cannot be assumed for all uses of DwC.
Gregor
On 4 December 2013 11:51, Richard Pyle <deepreef@bishopmuseum.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-mailto:tdwg-content- bounces@lists.tdwg.orgmailto: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/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.orgmailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- --
--------------------------------- Dr. Gregor Hagedorn Head of Digital World Museum für Naturkunde Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin +49 (0)30 2093 8576tel:%2B49%20%280%2930%202093%208576 (work) +49-(0)30-831 5785tel:%2B49-%280%2930-831%205785 (private) gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.demailto:gregor.hagedorn@mfn-berlin.de http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de http://linkedin.com/in/gregorhagedorn
This communication, together with any attachments, is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Redistributing or publishing it without permission may be a violation of copyright or privacy rights.
participants (2)
-
Bailly, Nicolas (WorldFish) -
Richard Pyle