Hi Donald, I just don't understand why an additional field canonicalScientificName (much like minimumElevationInMeters or countryCode) would create or shift the problem. It has a clear and easy to understand definition [1]. As a data provider I can assess if its too much of a bother to populate the field in addition to the more lenient scientificName (just like countryCode, etc.) and as a data user I can complain or ignore the data if I see the provider didn't follow the definition. This discussion resurfaces every time: clearly users would like to have this. So why do we make it difficult for those users and the data providers who can provide it? Peter [1] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150 I could even add "[...] it will contain one, two or three words" (see email Jessie Kennedy) PS: Yes, some people probably interpret scientificName as "Give us the cleanest representation of the scientific name you have", but that is definitely not the Darwin Core definition. It's more "give us the most verbose representation of the scientific name you have", which is what I use and what I advise all data publishers in my network to use. The difference doesn't matter though, the important thing is that a data user cannot expect this term to be a canonical representation of the name. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 13:36, Donald Hobern (GBIF) <dhobern@gbif.org>wrote:

Hi Rod.****

** **

Given the two alternatives you offer, I fully agree. However (and I may be very wrong on this), I don’t actually believe that what you describe is what is happening in most cases. I believe that the scientificName field should always be the “give us the cleanest representation of the scientific name you have” and we could certainly provide a more useful set of priorities for how that is defined. Regardless of what the DwC guidelines say, I think many data providers simply map their most closely aligned database column into the DwC view and we get whatever that happens to be, with whatever authorship it may contain.****

** **

I’d agree that the clean name is much closer to what a web-enabled linked-data world needs and would happily endorse a move to make that the recommended form. I just honestly believe that many providers will always give us something different. Adding a new field will just shift the problem.****

** **

At least that’s my perspective…****

** **

All the best,****

** **

Donald****

** **

** **

----------------------------------------------------------------------****

Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern@gbif.org ****

Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/ ****

GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark****

Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480****

----------------------------------------------------------------------****

** **

*From:* tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Roderic Page *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:50 PM *To:* TDWG Content Mailing List *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-content] canonicalScientificName****

** **

Dear Donald,****

** **

I couldn't disagree more!****

** **

It seems to me that this is one case where needs of consumers and providers align pretty well.****

** **

If I'm publishing data I want to avoid hassle, and one hassle is finding the taxonomic authorities for names. Then there is the issue of how to write the authority. There are so many variables: do I include diacritic characters? is the person's name abbreviated? what is the correct date? should I use parentheses? should I use commas? If I can just publish the canonical name life is simpler.****

** **

As a consumer I can't trust people to get the authority right. Publishers get the taxonomic names wrong, and they will certainly make a mess of the authority.****

** **

So, if we mandate clean names we are saying to providers "give me this"*** *

** **

<taxonomic name>****

[some scope for crap]****

** **

Instead, we've mandated "give me this"****

** **

<taxonomic name> + <authority>****

[some scope for crap] + [huge scope for crap]****

** **

Why? Why would we do this to ourselves? Why do we think it's OK to have databases full of duplicates such as these (from the ION database)?:****

** **

Pseudopaludicola Miranda Ribeiro 1926****

Pseudopaludicola Mir. Ribeiro 1926****

Pseudopaludicola Miranda-Ribeiro 1926****

** **

One consequence of this is that we have projects like http://globalnames.org project, which is essentially collecting endless variations on authority strings. In other words, trying to clean up a mess essentially of our own making. ****

** **

By all means have a field for taxonomic authority, but keep that separate from the canonical taxonomic name. In the real world, the canonical name is what people use. If we want people to make data available, make it simple. If we want people to use data make it simple.****

** **

Regards****

** **

Rod****

** **

** **

** **

On 14 Mar 2012, at 11:16, Donald Hobern wrote:****

****

Hi Peter.****

** **

I certainly sympathise with the desire for a readily-consumed naked scientific name field. However, unless the canonicalScientificName element is enforced as a mandatory field (which would in itself impact some data publishers and may prevent them validly sharing their data without extra work to provide clean scientific names), it will be yet another element which data consumers must check. If canonicalScientificName is supplied, consumers will still need to handle cases where it is malformed. If is not supplied, they will need to ignore the record or else do precisely what they do today with the scientificName field. ****

** **

I therefore worry that adding this field could in fact make the task more complex, rather than simpler, for data consumers.****

** **

Thanks,****

** **

Donald****

****

----------------------------------------------------------------------****

Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern@gbif.org****

Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/****

GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark****

Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480****

----------------------------------------------------------------------****

_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content****

** **

--------------------------------------------------------- Roderic Page Professor of Taxonomy Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk Tel: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792****

Skype: rdmpage AIM: rodpage1962@aim.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192 Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html****

** **

_______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

-- Peter Desmet Biodiversity Informatics Manager Canadensys - www.canadensys.net Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre 4101 rue Sherbrooke est Montreal, QC, H1X2B2 Canada Phone: 514-343-6111 #82354 Fax: 514-343-2288 Email: peter.desmet@umontreal.ca / peter.desmet.cubc@gmail.com Skype: anderhalv Public profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdesmet