[tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Sep 11 01:07:08 CEST 2009

> Authorship is permissible in scientificName. The current 
> working definition for scientificName is:

Sorry!  My bad.

> "The full scientific name of the currently valid (zoological) 
> or accepted (botanical) taxon."
> So, they are already consistent.

Agreed they are conceptually consistent -- but the wording of the
definitions ought to be consistent as well.

> The specimen record could contain all three of those fields 
> populated with the values shown, as well as the 
> scientificNameID, the acceptedTaxonNameID, and the 
> originalTaxonNameID, however, the specimen record would not 
> be required to have any of them.

OK, thanks.

> No, by design and happily, DwC defers implementation to implementors.
> I see perfectly good use cases for passing or storing 
> occurrence records with the full taxon information already 
> resolved (think GBIF Index).

OK, fair enough -- but I think the definitions need to be tightended up a
bit, and the terms should follow consistent patterns, to make it easier to
ensure that two different providers put the same sort of information under
the same terms.

> I think we need better access to the spreadsheet at 
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tZ3c04UGzRgalNxZMmcijcQ
> or we need to move the work to
> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Taxon until it gets 
> fully resolved and included in the post-public review version 
> I am eager to release.

Which do you prefer?  I'm happy to spend the time and do the work, as


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list