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

[Peter DeVries]

My vote would be to clarify the use of scientific name to not include
authorship as Rich suggests.

Perhaps a partial solution would be for the GNI or GBIF to provide some web
service that end users could use to clean and parse their names into their
dwc:scientificname and authorship parts. (They probably have something close
to this already)

For ease of use the system could output something like this

Puma concolor <tab>  (Linnaeus 1771)

In the process they could flag potentially incorrect uses of parenthesis
etc.

Puma concolor <tab>  Linnaeus 1771 <tab> Note Potentially incorrect
authorship - parenthesis missing

or

Felis concolor <tab>  Linnaeus 1771 <tab> Note Do you mean "Puma concolor
 (Linnaeus 1771)"

A beneficial side effect would be that everyone has a more normalized and
accurate species list.

Respectfully,

- Pete

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:40 PM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:

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



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101123/2749e656/attachment.html