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

[Jonathan Giddy]

On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
> I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not repeating
> what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship at
> both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g.
> Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
>
> And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2
> infraspecific levels, e.g.
> Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
>
> Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able to
> present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct place.
> E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not
> normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include this
> formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus Döring
> (GBIF)"
>
>
> Is there really anything we are missing?
>
>    
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record 
which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human 
editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart 
software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly 
formatted.

Jon.