[tdwg-content] Expressing some relationships in DwC?

"Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering at gbif.org
Tue Oct 25 16:43:12 CEST 2011

Hi Tony,
thanks for these practical questions. See inline for answers.

> I have a few nomenclatural relationships between name that I would like to express using DwC, and would like to know the preferred way to do this if any. The relationships are as follows:
> (1) Point a nomen novum to the basionym it replaces. From reading there was formerly a concept basionym/basionymID, apparently this is now replaced with originalNameUsage/originalNameUsageID. So one quesiton is, is this sufficient to infer this is a basionym, when accompanied by noneclaturalStatus = 'nomen novum'?
yes, that is exactly right. As far as I understand the term basionym is more of a botanical term and was not used as the final dwc term therefore.

> (2) Point an orthographic variant to the name which it is a variant of (whether or not the latter is now the accepted name). In other words, if name A is a variant of name B which is now a synonym of name C, I capture the A=>C relationship with a synonym assertion, but I want a way to capteure the A=>B relationship too.
This is only possible with an extension I am afraid. For example the generic dwc relationship one:

> (3) Point a nomen nudum to a validly published instance that comes later (or do the same in reverse, i.e. this name was preceded by xxx as a nomen nudum). Again, this should be independent of whether the validly published name is an accepted name or now a synonym of something else.
same problem as above.
I begin to wonder if a new term dwc:validNameUsageID would solve this issue gracefully and remove the need for a relationship extension.

> Advice appreciated,
> Regards - Tony Rees
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list