[tdwg-content] Expressing some relationships in DwC?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Wed Oct 26 12:49:33 CEST 2011

Fair point.  I guess I need to think about it some more.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" [mailto:mdoering at gbif.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:40 AM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Expressing some relationships in DwC?
> >> Well sure, valid is overloaded just as accepted is which we
> >> nevertheless
> > use
> >> for the "accepted" taxonomic relation.
> >> Leaving aside what the actual term name is, validNameUsage,
> >> correctNameUsage, amendedNameUsage or sth else - it seems to fix the
> >> problem, doesn't it?
> >
> > Perhaps, but I guess because of the ambiguity issue with "valid", I'm
> > not completely sure which specific problem is being solved in this
> > case. If, as from Tony's original email, it is to link a nomen nudum
> > usage instance to its corresponding validly published/available usage
> > instance, that makes some sense.  But then do we need something
> > similar for Emendations (e.g.,
> > emendedUsageInstance) and other sorts of nomenclatural relationships?
> > How many of these "foreign keys" will we ultimately need?  This is why
> > I'm thinking in terms of something more relational.
> My hope would be that we only need one for a nomenclatural relationship
> and use the nom status to specify its exact meaning.
> But of course you could have multiple relations and then this method won't
> work.
> At least it would allow us to publish most of the data in a simple way
> one has to step into the relationship extension.
> Markus

This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list