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

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Wed Nov 24 01:40:13 CET 2010


Rich,

No need to apologise... Actually it affects the aggregators in two respects, one is the larger vs. more compact data representation, the other is the present inconsistency about what is actually expected/supplied in practice by real world data providers in the present "scientificName" element. If it was clearer that this was for sciname + author, and the sciname without author had its own dedicated element, the incoming data would (might) be potentially a lot more consistent.

Basically it is the present "scientificNameAuthor" element which is clouding the issue - people see this and then think they do not need to add the author in to "scientificName" as well, although as previously stated by Markus this is technically incorrect according to the DwC spec (and I can see the argument for keeping it that way, so as to capture as much info as possible in that field).

Cheers - Tony
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:27 AM
> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); Chuck.Miller at mobot.org; dremsen at gbif.org
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org; dmozzherin at eol.org
> Subject: RE: [tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in
> DwCscientificName: good or bad?
> 
> 
> OK, understood.
> 
> But I guess my next question would be: is this really "bloat"?  Isn't the
> cost of the bloat much less than the value of providing fully parsed
> content?
> 
> I now understand what I think is a large part of the basis for our
> (perhaps
> non-existent?) disagreement: I'm thinking of dwc terms in the abstract
> sense, whereas you are thinking in terms of more practical issues such as
> the MB size of your DwCA files.  This also clarifies for me why you keep
> saying that it's really a question for the big aggregators (which I now
> understand and agree with).
> 
> Sorry if I was misunderstanding where you are coming from on this!
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 



More information about the tdwg-content mailing list