[tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore andDublinCoreusageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sun Nov 1 09:55:25 CET 2009

So....how does one represent a record that is both a NomenclaturalAct *and*
a TaxonomicAct at the same time (as I said, virtually all of the former also
constitute the latter)?  Perhaps this is the solution that I've been looking
for a while now -- that is, the basisOfRecord in this case is not really the
"basis of the record" (I would describe the basis of the record as a
TaxonNameUsage); but rather represents something more like "basis of
representation".  That is, if a single TaxonNameUsage instance both carries
a NomenclaturalAct and represent a TaxonomicAct, then the basisOfRecord
could distinguish which of the two "things" that the specific record is
intended to represent.  If basisOfRecord=NomenclaturalAct, then metadata
elements would include all the nomenclatural bits associated with the record
(e.g., various Code-governed events, etc.).  If basisOfRecord=TaxonomicAct,
then the metadata elements would include things like classification,
synonymy, included non-name-bearing specimens, etc.  In other words, the
"thing" is the same in both cases (i.e., a TaxonNameUsage instance), but the
difference would be which aspect of that thing the record is intended to

I suspect strongly that the preceding paragraph makes almost no sense
whatsoever to anyone other than me (and I'm not even sure I understand it).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org 
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Gregor Hagedorn
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:44 PM
> To: Blum, Stan
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; Vishwas Chavan (GBIF); Steve Baskauf
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Conflict between DarwinCore 
> andDublinCoreusageof dcterms:type / basisOfRecord
> > I can't remember where, maybe in one of Rich's examples, I 
> thought I saw the basisOfRecord for a taxonName designated 
> as: "NomenclaturalAct".  I thought that was both correct and 
> precise.  Similarly, I think the basis of a taxon record 
> should be a "TaxonomicAct", i.e., a published description or 
> reclassification.
> I would favor it, because keeping recordClass versus resource 
> type better separated. "NomenclaturalAct",  "TaxonomicAct" 
> would be dcterms:type =event, for unpublished acts or 
> dcterms:type=text for published acts. In fact in this case, 
> the dcterms:type would no longer be redundant.
> Gregor
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list