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

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Hi Hilmar, all,

Actually this is similar to my belief when starting this thread. I think it looks odd because there is a missing implied element, i.e. this would make a lot more sense:

  dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758
  dwc:canonicalName=Philander opossum
  dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758

However the element "dwc:canonicalName" does not seem to exist, e.g. not present in http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm - Maybe it should...

Regards - Tony

________________________________________
From: Hilmar Lapp [hlapp at nescent.org]
Sent: Sunday, 21 November 2010 5:34 AM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart)
Cc: m.doering at mac.com; dremsen at gbif.org; tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] [ExternalEmail] Re: [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwC scientificName: good or bad?

On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:11 PM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
wrote:

>  dwc:scientificName=Philander opossum Linnaeus, 1758
>  dwc:scientificNameAuthorship=Linnaeus, 1758


If we have the latter, I don't understand why the author and year
needs to be in the former, too, frankly. Doesn't this just complicate
our lives unnecessarily?

        -hilmar
--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
===========================================================