Hi all,
Since most of the discussion happened on this tdwg-content and tdwg-tag mailing lists already, can't we continue here? I created a link to both from the issue page: http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c2
I have been stuck in a meeting all day, while Tim Roberston wrote some convincing arguments against creating a canonicalScientificName term ( http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c1), as did Rich Pyle (email March 14 17:20 GMT-10:00). I will need some time to think about these. :-) I will try to write a coherent response tomorrow.
Peter
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 06:38, Tim Robertson [GBIF] trobertson@gbif.orgwrote:
Hi all,
Now that a "formal" proposal for a new term has been added [1], should this discussion continue here or on the issue tracker? To my knowledge that is the only forum that will be used for a new term when considering if it will get accepted.
When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field. I am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.
I'm, not sure this not applies in this case Simon. Is there really a scenario where you would put something in canonicalScientificName that you *could not* put in dwc:scientificName and would require a new term?
As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I
vote for adding it to the standard.
I've actually challenged this and believe it is not clearly defined [1], as it does not deal detail what to do when you are filling both, nor how a consumer would deal with apparently conflicting information. While the same is true for dwc:genus etc, this one is *so close* to dwc:scientificName and in many cases could legitimately have the same content, guidelines are going to be needed for consistent use. I fear a repeat of the consumption mess dealing with conflicting abcd:catalogNumber and abcd:catalogNumberNumeric unwittingly being used inconsistently across resources.
I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?
Rod, for the vast majority of names a couple of regular expressions suffice anyway - right? We don't need a new term to deal with the easy stuff, and for the hard stuff this term doesn't help anyway.
Cheers, Tim
[1 ] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150&colspec=ID%20Ty...
On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Simon Chagnoux wrote:
Sure, for prototypes and proof of concept things, edge cases can be left apart. But some people and institutions also use Darwin Core for exchanging data between big databases. It is a simple and powerful tool for that, especially coupled with DwC/A.
When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field. I am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.
As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I vote for adding it to the standard.
Regards,
Simon.
Le 14/03/2012 20:17, Roderic Page a écrit :
Apart from the fact that I can barely bring myself to care about plants ;) I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?
Regards
Rod
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag