[Tdwg-lit] Level 1 summary and proposal
Weitzman at si.edu
Thu Mar 9 18:00:28 CET 2006
Following on from Gregor's message, it appears that there is some consensus
from those who have contributed, that the Level 1 standard should be a
recommendation for the format of a microcitation, as commonly used in
biological taxonomic works, most often in synonymies. It will be used in a
variety of ways, but it is, in a sense, being created in order to maintain
some human-readable version of an GUID for citations of published material.
This is important, as Gregor points out "technically it would be sufficient
to simple store a uri. However, considering we want to express scientific
data, I believe it would be wise to store a uri plus a single string
representation. If the uri breaks (say in 50 years), we still have the
Basically, we are, in a sense, codifying 200+ years of tradition into a
recommendation. There is little in the Codes of Botanical or Zoological
nomenclature to help us since the Codes are about names (especially about
their 'availability' (zoo) or 'valid publication' (bot) rather than about
where in the literature they were used. Nevertheless, we have cited at the
bottom of this message, some relevant recommendations, which, while not
directly aimed at citations in synonymy, are nonetheless relevant.
It should also be noted that authors and titles are usually be abbreviated.
Botany has standardized lists, which have been adopted nearly universally,
for both of these, and the group may want to recommend following those
lists. Zoology does not have a single list, and in most cases the lists
that are used are more informal than formal. Should we recommend that TDWG
work on compiling and merging those lists and proposing those as a separate
We make the following recommendation for the "Level 1 standard" based on
that tradition along with some examples. We are not proposing the following
list as named elements within the microcitation string, only the recommended
components, with an initial thought as to whether each is required or
optional, and their recommended order.
Level 1 (Microcitation) standard recommendation
Author(s) of citation (required; this could be the author(s) of a new taxon
or new combination, or just that portion of the work being cited)
Author(s) of work (optional; the author(s) of a book, chapter, or article,
if different from citation author(s))
Title of work (required; the title of the book, book series, journal,
volume indicator (optional, though required if applicable)
part or issue number indicator (optional; though required if applicable)
image indicator (optional)
Note 1: Article and/or chapter title have been omitted as they are rarely,
if ever, used in microcitations; they will be included, along with many
other things in level 2.
Note 2: We should perhaps include some recommendation about a reference to
the permanent archive for an electronic publication. How such a permanent
archive is set up and probably how to cite is one of the major issues for
those discussing long-term electronic data curation issues, but at least we
should make reference to that ultimate goal and add an appropriate
recommendation when there are community standards.
Note 3: Should an LSID for the microcitation be added? Should there be an
LSID that links to the level 2 standard reference with metadata that
probably exists at the level of article, chapter, volume in a book series, a
single book, etc.?
Anna & Chris
Recommendation 22A.2.3. if wishing to cite both the actual and the imprint
dates, should first cite the actual date (...), followed by the imprint date
for information and enclosed in parentheses or other brackets and quotation
Recommendation 51B. Transliteration of author's name. When the author's
name is customarily written in a language that does not use the Latin
alphabet it should be given in Latin letters with or without diacritic
Recommendation 51E. Citation of contributors. If a scientific name and the
conditions other than publication that make it available [...] are the
responsibility not of the author of the work containing them, but of some
other person(s), or less than all of joint authors, the authorship of the
name, if cited, should be stated as "B in A", or "B in A & B", or in
whatever form is appropriate to facilitate information retrieval....
Article 46.2. A name of a new taxon must be attributed to the author or
authors to whom both the name and the validating description or diagnosis
were ascribed, even when authorship of the publication is different....
Note 1. When authorship of a name differs from the authorship of the
publication in which it was validly published both are sometimes cited,
connected by the word "in". In such a case, "in" and what follows are part
of a bibliographic citation and are better omitted unless the place of
publication is also being cited.
Article 46.4. A name of a new taxon must be attributed to the author or
authors of the publication in which it appears only when the name but not
the validating description or diagnosis was ascribed to a different author
or different authors.... However, ... authorship as ascribed, followed by
"ex", may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s).
Recommendation 46A.1. For purposes of author citation, prefixes indicating
ennoblement (...) should be suppressed unless they are an inseparable part
of the name.
Recommendation 46A.2. When a name in an author citation is abbreviated,
the abbreviation should be long enough to be distinctive, and should
normally end with a consonant that, if the full name, precedes a vowel. The
first letters should be given without any omission, but one of the last
characteristic consonants may be added when this is customary.
Recommendation 46A.3. Given names or accessory designations serving to
distinguish two botanists of the same name should be abridged in the same
Recommendation 46A.4. When it is a well-established custom to abridge a
name in another manner, it is advisable to conform to custom.
Note 1. Brummit & Powell's Authors of plant names (1992) provides
unambiguous standard abbreviations, in conformity with the present
Recommendation 46B.1. In citing the author of the scientific name of a
taxon, the romanization of the author's name given in the original
publication should normally be accepted. Where an author failed to give a
romanization, or where the author has at different times used different
romanizations, then the romanization known to be preferred by the author or
that most frequently adopted by the author should be accepted. In the
absence of such information the author's name should be romanized in
accordance with an internationally available standard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content