[tdwg-content] DwC taxonomic terms
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.
> 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
> 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