[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwCscientificName: good or bad? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Paul Murray]

On 24/11/2010, at 11:11 AM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
> 
> It's lossy if I do not wish to add unnecessary "bloat" to my (already large) DwCA export file by including dedicated fields for the individual values of specificEpithet, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom as previously mentioned. These (especially the higher taxa for any level) are specifically *not* required in the "normalized" example given on the TDWG wiki as they can be generated on receipt of the data by following the parentID value/s.


Not sure if I've mentioned it on the list, but one of my solutions was to include a format string indicating how to compose various renderings of the name from its fields. You'd provide a name-only format, a name with authority format, and so on.

Thus: "{genus} {species} {epithet}" for subspecific names, and "{genus} {species} {rank} {epithet}" for form, variant and so on. The difficulty is that it's nonstandard, it requires additional processing at the client end, and hybrids are still a bit of a mess. And advantage is that the process of building these format strings would tell us something about how names are composed.

_______________________________________________


If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.