[tdwg-content] [tdwg-tag] canonicalScientificName

Sat Mar 17 02:25:25 CET 2012

Hi Chuck and others,

I submitted a formal request [1] to add the term canonicalScientificName to
hopefully reach a consensus from the TDWG community: either we add it or we
don't. This term keeps popping up and I think it would be good if we
reached a formal decision [2]. So I'm all for keeping the discussion open
and involving more actual users. Given the reactions (pro and con) it
wouldn't help much if I retract my request now I think.

Me personally am very happy with the response I got so far. I now think
that the need for the term (with the definition I proposed) is no longer
justified, on the condition that we refine the definition for genus, which
I also formally requested [3]. Darwin Core is a community standard and I
just want to improve it where I can: Is there a way to share canonical
names? Is it even necessary? The eventual solution (don't do anything, add
canonicalScientificName as is or altered, or change the definition for
genus) is a community decision.

Cheers,

Peter

[1] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150
[2] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/decisions/index.htm
[3] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 18:18, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org> wrote:

> Peter,****
>
> Are you now withdrawing your formal request to add the term
> canonicalScientificName to DwC?  I had forwarded your request to John
> Wieczorek to notify him of the initiation of the change process on Google
> Code.****
>
> ** **
>
> Frankly, I was hoping for a broader comment period involving more of the
> actual “users” that have been mentioned in the various threads,
> particularly more of the plant name users, to put some more balance into
> the discussion.  Then, let the process go through to an up or down decision
> on the request based on that (hopefully) broader discussion.  Discounting
> hybrid names as “an edge case” seemed a bit edgy and worthy of some more
> reaction from actual users/consumers of plant name data before being taken
> as consensus.****
>
> ** **
>
> But, are you withdrawing the request?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Chuck****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:
> tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter Desmet
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 4:52 PM
> *To:* Tim Robertson [GBIF]
> *Cc:* TDWG content mailing list; tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [tdwg-tag] [tdwg-content] canonicalScientificName****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> The reason why I proposed a canonicalScientificName was to make it easier
> for data users.****
>
> ** **
>
> As Tim Robertson points out [1], adding this term will probably make it
> more complicated, without much benefit. Gregor Hagedorn [2] explains that
> canonicalScientificName is not a solution for some edge cases (like
> hybrids) and infraspecific names without a rank marker don't mean much in
> botany. Rich Pyle [3] points out that more requests will probably be
> proposed (canonicalScientificNameWithoutRanks,
> canonicalScientificNameWithoutInfrageneric), demonstrated by Gregor's
> remark [2].****
>
> ** **
>
> I now agree with all of these. The only thing I'd like to refine is the
> definition for genus [4], for which I issued a request:
> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=151****
>
> ** **
>
> See my argumentation in the link above. Basically: As I explained before
> (and Markus Döring before me), under the current definition the genus gets
> populated with the genus name of the accepted taxon for a synonym, while
> the specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet are not. I think this is
> counter intuitive and confusing. I would populate it with the "genus name
> of the scientificName", which I think is how much people interpret it
> anyway. Advantages:****
>
> ** **
>
> 1. Agreeing with the refined definition for genus won't affect most of our
> applications and data (only for those who cared about putting the accepted
> genus for synonyms).****
>
> 2. No new term canonicalScientificName.****
>
> 3. Not need to update the useful definition for scientificName (verbose
> all the way if you can).****
>
> 4. Publishers and aggregators *have the option* to provide an easier to
> use name via genus, specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet. None of these
> have an authorship, so creating a canonicalScientificName under the
> proposed definition is as easy as TRIM(genus+" "+specificEpithet+"
> "+infraspecificEpithet).****
>
> 5. The above statement only applies to genera, species and infraspecific
> taxa, but this is the bulk of our data. This method cannot be applied to
> infrageneric taxa and higher taxa, but as Rich pointed out [3], there are
> alternative methods for this.****
>
> 6. Aggregators can ignore genus, specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet
> for heterogenous networks and use parsers to deal with scientificNames.
> Stripping out the scientificNameAuthorship or using a simple regular
> expression won't sometimes be enough of course, e.g. "*Calamagrostis* *
> stricta* (Timm) Koeler subsp. *stricta* (Timm) Koeler var. *borealis*(Laestadius) Hartman" and those pesky hybrids. The good this is that once
> they have done the work, they can actually express that data in Darwin Core
> (see point 4).****
>
> 7. Timon lepidus won't complain [5]. :-)****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c1****
>
> [2] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c3****
>
> [3] http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/2012-March/002487.html****
>
> [4] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#genus****
>
> [5] https://plus.google.com/114672072317054763788/posts/Nph2ksggNZW****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 17:28, Peter Desmet <peter.desmet at umontreal.ca>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Since most of the discussion happened on this tdwg-content and tdwg-tag
> mailing lists already, can't we continue here? I created a link to both
> from the issue page:
> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c2****
>
> ** **
>
> I have been stuck in a meeting all day, while Tim Roberston wrote some
> convincing arguments against creating a canonicalScientificName term (
> http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150#c1), as did Rich
> Pyle (email March 14 17:20 GMT-10:00). I will need some time to think
> about these. :-) I will try to write a coherent response tomorrow.****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> --
> Peter Desmet
> Biodiversity Informatics Manager
> Canadensys - www.canadensys.net
>
> Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre
> 4101 rue Sherbrooke est
> Montreal, QC, H1X2B2
> Canada
>
> Phone: 514-343-6111 #82354
> Fax: 514-343-2288
> Email: peter.desmet at umontreal.ca / peter.desmet.cubc at gmail.com
> Skype: anderhalv
> Public profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdesmet****
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>
>

-- 
Peter Desmet
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Canadensys - www.canadensys.net

Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre
4101 rue Sherbrooke est
Montreal, QC, H1X2B2
Canada

Phone: 514-343-6111 #82354
Fax: 514-343-2288
Email: peter.desmet at umontreal.ca / peter.desmet.cubc at gmail.com
Skype: anderhalv
Public profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdesmet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20120316/426da141/attachment.html 