[tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

[Bailly, Nicolas (WorldFish)]

I suggest:

- For the specimen: isType, a yes/no field: whatever the scientific name concerned, whatever the type of type: Holotype, paratype, etc. Just to flag it is a special specimen.

And then in the identification part the type of type of what name, e.g.: Paralectotype of Foa fo.
It also solve the issue of Rich, several identification events can be associated to a specimen, including being a type of several names. One identification is flagged as the last name associated with the specimen.

- But can DwC manage several identification events per specimen?
We are not anymore in a flat structure ...
If not all the identification event have to put in a module-remark field containing the concatenation of types of type, names, date of id, ...

BW
Nicolas.

-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: Wednesday, 2013 December 04 6:51 PM
To: tuco at berkeley.edu; 'TDWG Content Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName

Hmmm.....

This is the reason that typeStatus was included in the Identification class
-- so that it always is associated with both a specimen (manifest as an occurrence), and to a taxon (name) -- to which the specimen is Identified.
This is in keeping with what the concept of a "type specimen" really is -- that is, a specimen is not a type inherently, but rather a specimen is
*designated* as a type by someone at some time, via an Identification instance.

Of course, because DwC classes are not really intended to be used in an ontological sense, and because most Museums put their "typeStatus" field in their specimen table (rather than in an Identification table), I can certainly understand the need for this proposed new term.

I guess my main concern/question is:  how to deal with specimens that represent types of more than one name? (not common, but not necessarily an Edge-case either)

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content- 
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:13 AM
> To: TDWG Content Mailing List
> Subject: [tdwg-content] New Term Request - typifiedName
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This message is to open public commentary on a request for a new term, 
> typifiedName, submitted by Markus Döring to the Darwin Core issue 
> tracker at https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=197.
> The justification given for inclusion of the term is:
> 
> "Clear separation of the type status and the typified scientific name 
> that
is
> typified by a type specimen, the subject. Looking at how 
> dwc:typeStatus
has
> been used in all of GBIFs specimen data one can see there is the need 
> to express this, but it should better be handled with a term on its 
> own and leave typeStatus for the status of the type only. The term 
> name itself is
also
> used by ABCD:
> http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/ABCD/AbcdConcept0603."
> 
> The proposal is as follows:
> 
> Definition:
> The scientific name that is based on the type specimen.
> 
> Comment:
> It is recommended to also indicate the typeStatus of the specimen.
> 
> Refines:
> 
> Has Domain:
> 
> Has Range:
> 
> Replaces:
> 
> ABCD 2.06:
> DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation
> s/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypifiedName
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

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