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/NomenclaturalTypeDesignations/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
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
I suggest:
- For the specimen: isType, a yes/no field: whatever the scientific name concerned, whatever the type of type: Holotype, paratype, etc. Just to flag it is a special specimen.
And then in the identification part the type of type of what name, e.g.: Paralectotype of Foa fo. It also solve the issue of Rich, several identification events can be associated to a specimen, including being a type of several names. One identification is flagged as the last name associated with the specimen.
- But can DwC manage several identification events per specimen? We are not anymore in a flat structure ... If not all the identification event have to put in a module-remark field containing the concatenation of types of type, names, date of id, ...
BW Nicolas.
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle Sent: Wednesday, 2013 December 04 6:51 PM To: tuco@berkeley.edu; 'TDWG Content Mailing List' Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
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
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/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
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/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
_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
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/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
_______________________________________________ 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
...and if so, could the Darwin Core Identification History extension (http://tools.gbif.org/dwca-validator/extension.do?id=http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/...) 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/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
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
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
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
I'm not following this thread carefully enough to have an opinion, but my minor worry---if it is not misguided---would be that making a solution for dwca alone might prematurely tie down solutions in more general representations. Markus' scope redefinition doesn't seem to risk that since it applies to the vocabulary, not the serialization. Probably that is also the case if adding typifiedName.
What's less clear to me is the impact of the sentence "In case of multiple [...] typeStatus and a scientificName." I took this to mean that this advice might bind the problem to dwca, but in private email, Markus clarified for me that he only means that it is a way to use it with dwca. So what follows might deserve a new thread here or in tdwg-rdf rather than propose a concern about Markus' post.
All that said, when I look at http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.xml I can see a pretty natural OWL representation of it. (Maybe that extension XML-Schema actually \is/ a translation of an OWL ontology! Oooh, wouldn't that be delightful. :-) ). So maybe there is not much of a concern for data representation in RDF, and the worrisome sentence would become not a concern for RDF, but rather simply a more general piece of advice something like "In case of multiple names being typified by a single specimen, the RDF data should be consistent with the ontology http://rs.gbif.org/extension/dwc/identification.owl."
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Markus Döring m.doering@mac.com wrote:
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
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
Hi Markus,
When I get back home I can send you some more specific examples. In some cases this happens intentionally, when a name that is clearly a junior synonym of another name requires a neotype, and both the junior synonym and senior synonym were collected in the same geographic region. Some authors prefer to fix the synonym in such cases by assigning the primary type of the senior synonym as the neotype for the junior synonym, to establish objective synonymy (note: I'm not commenting on whether this is good practice or bad, but it definitely happens). In other cases, there is inadvertent duplication of effort when two different researchers name different names for the same new species based on the same type, not realizing that another researcher is working on the same material. In other cases, a less-scrupulous author attempts to "steal" a name from another research. Two examples of the latter off the top of my head include:
Chaetodon declevis http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s pid=8710
Hemitaurichthys multispinus http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?s pid=22029
I can do a more thorough search for examples when I get back home.
As I said, it's certainly not common, but definitely does happen enough that it could be a problem.
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Markus Döring [mailto:m.doering@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:09 AM To: Richard Pyle Cc: John Wieczorek; 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/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
participants (8)
-
Bailly, Nicolas (WorldFish) -
Bob Morris -
Chuck Miller -
Eades, David Cluthe -
John Wieczorek -
Markus Döring -
Peter (work) -
Richard Pyle