[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Thu Nov 18 23:26:25 CET 2010


Just re-sending the message below because it bounced the first time...


Markus/all,

I guess my point is that (as I understand it) scientificName is a required field in DwC, so the question is what it should be populated with. If it is (e.g.) genus + species epithet + authority, then is it beneficial to supply these fields individually / atomised as well, maybe with other qualifiers as needed?

Just looking for an example "best practice" here - or maybe it exists somewhere and you can just point to it.
in other words:

(a)
<scientificName>Homo sapiens</scientificName>
<scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>

or (b):
<scientificName>Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758</scientificName>
<genus>Homo</genus>
<specificEpithet>sapiens</specificEpithet>
<scientificNameAuthorship>Linnaeus, 1758</a>

if you get my drift...

Regards  - Tony

Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101119/3fffa326/attachment.html 


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list