[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] Inclusion of authorship in DwCscientificName: good or bad?
David Remsen (GBIF)
dremsen at gbif.org
Thu Nov 25 10:00:21 CET 2010
> The thing that concerns me about 3a is the conditional definition of
> scientificName (i.e., it excludes authorship when that information is
> pre-parsed, but includes it when it's not pre-parsed).
right. That is where we are today. We need to test the contents
every time. One thing we are developing requirements for is a
DarwinCore Archive "Normaliser" which would be a web service/web app
client that can accepted a DwC-A as input and would output the same
data as a new DwC-A that conforms to a set of rules based on those
requirements. So one thing would be to parse the names into the
authorship field for simpler consumption.
> The thing that concerns me about 3b is that scientificName is
> (supposedly?)
> required; so if someone with unparsed information provides
> scientificNameWithAuthorship, then are they supposed to leave
> scientificName
> blank?
The short answer is yes, they would leave it blank. if they could
parse it then they would have put the parts into name and author
elements in the first place. I also think the inverse is true. If
it is already split and they put it into name and author fields - they
won't concatenate and put a new, merged copy into a name+authorship
field.
In regard to the requirement confusion - either we keep
dwc:scientificName alone and have a simple requirement test or we add
a new term and make it a conditional requirement. My point was, if
we add a new term, then the set (scientificNameWithAuthorship,
scientificName, scientificNameAuthorship) is more clear than
(canonicalName, scientificName, scientificNameAuthorship)
DR
>
> Rich
>
>
>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list