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

[Arturo H Ariño]

"Markus Döring (GBIF)" <mdoering at gbif.org> ha escrito:

>>> [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
>

In time and from scratch... yes, converging simplifies things in  
Taxspeak. Smaller dictionary: doubleplusgood.

But existing, real life data is stubbornly diverse. Non-Oceanians  
would probably favour robust (i.e. multiple) approaches for a while.

Arturo



> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje ha sido enviado desde https://webmail.unav.es