[tdwg-content] Clarification about values for dwc:county

Steve Baskauf steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
Mon Apr 13 15:23:39 CEST 2015


Dag,

 From the RDF standpoint, I would have a value for 
dwciri:inDescribedPlace of http://sws.geonames.org/5666648/ .  However, 
in the generic, non-RDF record, I'm interested in providing a literal 
value for dwc:county as well.  So that's why I'm interested in knowing 
what the conventional or recommended practice is.  Maybe this boils down 
to a GBIF question.  What would GBIF want?

Steve

Dag Endresen wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> Geonames seems to be using gn:name="Missoula County"
> http://sws.geonames.org/5666648/about.rdf
> http://www.geonames.org/5666648/missoula-county.html
>
> Could something along the lines of
> dwciri:county="http://sws.geonames.org/5666648/" perhaps be useful?
>
> Regards
> Dag
>
> On 13 April 2015 at 01:12, Steve Baskauf <steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Yes, I agree.  It probably is a usage issue.  If there is a mixture of usage
>> with some people reporting it one way ("Missoula") and others reporting it
>> the other way ("Missoula County"), then I would probably include the "
>> County" part.  However, if nearly everyone omits the last part, then I don't
>> want to expose DwC data that doesn't play well with what is conventional,
>> and I would omit the last part.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> Bob Morris wrote:
>>
>> This may be a usage issue not a definition issue. For example if you search
>> for the form of notarized signature in u.s. states, you will probably
>> conclude that most or all states require a form County of _______________.
>> In turn this and its sisters may be derived from the Uniform Commercial
>> Code.  But other legal docs may have different conventions.  One could wish
>> that a best practice would be to follow local practice for legal names of
>> such named entities as counties.  But my guess is that in the U.S. this is
>> full of huge state to state variation arising from historical events,
>> especially colonial ones.
>> Bob
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2015 10:35 AM, "Steve Baskauf" <steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> The definition of dwc:county is: "The full, unabbreviated name of the
>>> next smaller administrative region than stateProvince (county, shire,
>>> department, etc.) in which the Location occurs."  What I'm wondering
>>> about is whether the "full" name includes the second part to the name as
>>> it's typically written in the U.S. and Canada.  "Missoula" is given as
>>> an example.  However, the full name of that county in Montana is
>>> actually "Missoula County".  If there were consistency in second parts
>>> of county names, one could just assume that one adds " County" after the
>>> value given for dwc:county.  However, there isn't consistency.  In
>>> Louisiana, it's "Washington Parish".  In Alaska, names usually end with
>>> "Borough" (e.g. "Denali Borough"), although sometimes they don't (e.g.
>>> "Dillingham Census Area").  Outside the U.S. and Canada, there may be no
>>> second part to the name, or it might be something completely different.
>>>
>>> I am having a problem with this when I try to display values of
>>> dwc:county on a web page.  Currently I have some rules that involve
>>> examining the country and the value of dwc:stateProvince to decide what
>>> to append after the first part of the name. But they don't work for
>>> Alaska and if I just said "Dillingham, Alaska" that would really be
>>> wrong if I meant the Dillingham Census Area and not the city of
>>> Dillingham.  It would be easier to display them if the second part of
>>> the name were included in the value.
>>>
>>> Is there a convention on this?  I was assuming that it would be to omit
>>> the second part of the name, but since the definition says "full,
>>> unabbreviated name", I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>>> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>>>
>>> postal mail address:
>>> PMB 351634
>>> Nashville, TN  37235-1634,  U.S.A.
>>>
>>> delivery address:
>>> 2125 Stevenson Center
>>> 1161 21st Ave., S.
>>> Nashville, TN 37235
>>>
>>> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>>> phone: (615) 343-4582,  fax: (615) 322-4942
>>> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
>>> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>>> http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tdwg-content mailing list
>>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>>>       
>> --
>> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>>
>> postal mail address:
>> PMB 351634
>> Nashville, TN  37235-1634,  U.S.A.
>>
>> delivery address:
>> 2125 Stevenson Center
>> 1161 21st Ave., S.
>> Nashville, TN 37235
>>
>> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>> phone: (615) 343-4582,  fax: (615) 322-4942
>> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
>> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>> http://vanderbilt.edu/trees
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences

postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN  37235-1634,  U.S.A.

delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235

office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582,  fax: (615) 322-4942
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
http://vanderbilt.edu/trees


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20150413/b13d3095/attachment.html 


More information about the tdwg-content mailing list