[tdwg-content] proposed term: dwc:verbatimScientificName

[Peter DeVries]

I think this make a lot of sense.

I was making up some sample lists and I thought something similar.

If I have a list which is missing some authorship string, should just the
genus and species go into the scientificName field?

What David and Markus propose make it much easier to interpret the meaning
of these terms.

Also I have always thought the following:

Puma concolor <= This is the scientific name


(Linnaeus 1771) <= This is the authorship string of that name

If you try to work with the other suggested way with real lists you run into
all sorts of problems, especially when trying to match one list to another.

In summary, I support this clarification.

Respectfully,

- Pete


On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:09 AM, David Remsen (GBIF) <dremsen at gbif.org>wrote:

> Markus and I wanted to try to consolidate the issues related to the current
> use and definition of scientificName that have been the focus of last weeks
> discussion in as simple a way as we can and leave it with a simple proposal
> which we will add to the issue tracking on the project site.
>
> 1. We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the
> existing definition for dwc:scientificName and
> 2. dwc:scientificName follow the more accepted convention that is better
> represented by the earlier proposed definition for Canonical Name
>
> The intention is to enable data publishers to distinguish unparsed, complex
> scientific names from more cleanly separated scientific name data.   This
> will relieve consumers of these data from testing each instance of a name
> for one of these two conditions.
>
> Here are the definitions for the two existing terms that have been part of
> the discussion:
>
> *dwc:scientificName * - The full scientific name, with authorship and date
> information if known. When forming part of an Identification, this should be
> the name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term
> should not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be
> supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term.
>
> *dwc:scientificNameAuthorship* - The authorship information for the
> scientificName formatted according to the conventions of the applicable
> nomenclaturalCode.
>
> Here are terms and definitions used in the following 5 source data
> configurations we came up with.   They don't have to be exact for this
> purpose.
>
> *canonical name* - The nomenclatural components of a scentific name
> without authorship information.
> *authorship* - the authorship information that follows a scientific name
> *verbatim name*  - the verbatim text stored in a source database when it
> differs from or combines the two definitions above.  This is a bit more
> broad than the def for scientificName.
>
> We identified the following configurations in a source database and how
> they would be mapped to the existing terms.  In cases 4 and 5 we also
> propose how we would map these were there a 3rd available term (called
> 'mapping b:')
>
> When a source database contains:
>
> 1.  canonical names only
>
> Mapping:  canonical name -> dwc:scientificName
>
> 2. canonical name and authorship in two fields
>
> Mapping: canonical name -> dwc:scientificName /
> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
>
> 3. verbatim name only
>
> Mapping:  verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName
>
> 4. all three: canonical name, authorship, and verbatim name in 3 diff.
> columns
>
> Mapping a:  verbatim name -> dwc:scientificName  /
> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship
>
> Mapping b:  canonical name -> dwc:scientificName  /
> authorship->dwc:scientificNameAuthorship / verbatim name ->
> dwc:verbatimScientificName
>
> 5. a mix of canonical and verbatim names in a single column
>
> Mapping a:  verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:scientificName
>
> Mapping b:  verbatim name + canonical names -> dwc:verbatimScientificName
>
> Summary - with the current two terms are left with no choice but to support
> both canonical and verbatim names in a single term, which makes consuming
> these data difficult.
>
> We propose that a new term, dwc:verbatimScientificName carry the existing
> definition for dwc:scientificName and that dwc:scientificName follow the
> more accepted convention that is better represented by the definition for
> Canonical Name
>
> Best,
> David Remsen / Markus Döring
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101208/b636910b/attachment.html