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

Bob Morris morris.bob at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 20:03:32 CET 2010


I agree wholly.  There does remain the question of what changes, if
any, are being urged for legacy data, and what is the scope of such
changes.  One thing that ought to happen is that any recommendations
be versioned so that software can document and act upon the version it
means to.  I forget whether GBIF recommendations do this, but in
another context I'd urgently like to know. :-)


On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)"
<mdoering at gbif.org> wrote:
>>> [concensus discussion]
>>> ...  Why make all software check for two alternatives
>>> when a consensus would fix the problem?  (Consensus... did I say that
>>> word in a tdwg-content email????)
>>
>> Ummm, because plenty of data will not meet the consensus? Because
>> robust software checks for things that may occur even if  they violate
>> expectations, rules, standards, recommendations, conventions, or
>> consensus?
>
> Nevertheless its worthwhile trying to converge towards a standard vocabulary.
> So we definitely should recommend a best practice that more and more people can follow over time!
>
> At GBIF we recommend the english values, but if there is a consensus to change that to latin I think we dont mind:
> http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/rank.xml
>
> Markus
>
>



-- 
Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390
Associate, Harvard University Herbaria
email: morris.bob at gmail.com
web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list