Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not repeating what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship at both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able to present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct place. E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include this formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
Although useful to some degree there should be NO formatting tags inside any of the name terms. Formatting can currently only be done via the atomised bits or parsing.
Markus
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:37, Jonathan Giddy wrote:
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not repeating what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship at both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able to present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct place. E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include this formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
Although I agree, I wonder if there is a need for a verbatim formatted term possibility somewhere? If a name is published but is incorrect, we need to be able to refer back to the original name exactly as it was published. But it may not be possible to correctly atomise it.
John
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring (GBIF)" Sent: 19 November 2010 12:00 To: Jonathan Giddy Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?
Although useful to some degree there should be NO formatting tags inside any of the name terms. Formatting can currently only be done via the atomised bits or parsing.
Markus
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:37, Jonathan Giddy wrote:
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not
repeating
what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship
at
both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able
to
present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct
place.
E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include
this
formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
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 am with Markus!
Dima
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering@gbif.orgwrote:
Although useful to some degree there should be NO formatting tags inside any of the name terms. Formatting can currently only be done via the atomised bits or parsing.
Markus
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:37, Jonathan Giddy wrote:
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not
repeating
what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship
at
both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able
to
present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct
place.
E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include
this
formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus
Döring
(GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
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
There is no reason why scientific names should be 'formatted' at all, other than common stylistic practice and editorial policy that text fro foreign languages are italicized (or romanized if the body is italics).
Having said that, I like the visual appeal and gravitas of scientific names in italics. :)
Jim
On Friday, November 19, 2010, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering@gbif.org wrote:
Although useful to some degree there should be NO formatting tags inside any of the name terms. Formatting can currently only be done via the atomised bits or parsing.
Markus
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:37, Jonathan Giddy wrote:
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not repeating what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship at both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able to present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct place. E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include this formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
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 (5)
-
"Markus Döring (GBIF)" -
Dmitry Mozzherin -
Jim Croft -
John van Breda -
Jonathan Giddy