[tdwg-content] proposed term: dwc:verbatimScientificName

[Richard Pyle]

> Perhaps we need to add a "rule" element as Bob Morris has suggested.
> Then with that additional fact, the usage of the other terms would be
> specifically declared by the provider and all this assumption/inferencing
> would not be needed, where the declaration of the rule was provided.

I don't follow.  From a DwC perspective, the providers are serving text
strings.  I think the proposal by David and Markus adequately captures the
needs of both the providers, and the consumers.  It's a good compromise
solution (80% of the benefit with 20% of the work).

> But, millions of rows of legacy data may never conform to anything done at
> this point.  If the meaning of ScientificName is altered by a definitional
> change after 10 years of the DarwinCore term being used with a different
> definition, no doubt the end result will be even more world-wide data
> hegemony because there will not be a sudden switchover of all the legacy
> data to the new definition.  That herd of elephants is not going to turn
> quickly, so for some long time you really won't know what you have in a
> given ScientificName field - the old definition or the new.

That was the basis for my original hesitation to redefine scientificName;
but here's the thing -- over those ten years, the term has *not* been
consistently applied or used.  The herd of elephants has just been
meandering aimlessly in this sense.  What I think the proposed solution
allows is at least a start of orienting the elephants heading in the same
general direction.  The point is, as evidenced by the data GBIF harvests, we
*already* don't know what we have in a given scientificName field, because
providers are not applying the stated definition consistently.

Aloha,
Rich