[tdwg-tag] [tdwg-content] canonicalScientificName

[Tim Robertson [GBIF]]

Hi all,

Now that a "formal" proposal for a new term has been added [1], should this discussion continue here or on the issue tracker?   To my knowledge that is the only forum that will be used for a new term when considering if it will get accepted.

> When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing 
> the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field.  I 
> am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.

I'm, not sure this not applies in this case Simon.  Is there really a scenario where you would put something in canonicalScientificName that you *could not* put in dwc:scientificName and would require a new term?  
  
> As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I  vote for adding it to the standard.

I've actually challenged this and believe it is not clearly defined [1], as it does not deal detail what to do when you are filling both, nor how a consumer would deal with apparently conflicting information.  While the same is true for dwc:genus etc, this one is *so close* to dwc:scientificName and in many cases could legitimately have the same content, guidelines are going to be needed for consistent use.  I fear a repeat of the consumption mess dealing with conflicting abcd:catalogNumber and abcd:catalogNumberNumeric unwittingly being used inconsistently across resources.

>>  I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present 
>> these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?

Rod, for the vast majority of names a couple of regular expressions suffice anyway - right?  We don't need a new term to deal with the easy stuff, and for the hard stuff this term doesn't help anyway.  

Cheers,
Tim


[1 ] http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=150&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Milestone%20Project%20Reporter%20Summary%20Opened



On Mar 15, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Simon Chagnoux wrote:

> Sure, for prototypes and proof of concept things, edge cases can be left 
> apart. But some people and institutions also use Darwin Core for 
> exchanging data between big databases. It is a simple and powerful tool 
> for that, especially coupled with DwC/A.
> 
> When records doesn't fit in standard terms and you cannot afford losing 
> the information, the only solution is to add your own custom field.  I 
> am clearly happier when I find the term I need in the standard.
> 
> As canonicalScientificName is both useful enough and clearly defined I 
> vote for adding it to the standard.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 
> 
> Le 14/03/2012 20:17, Roderic Page a écrit :
>> Apart from the fact that I can barely bring myself to care about 
>> plants ;) I suspect that the vast majority of names do not present 
>> these problems. Why do we let edge cases determine what we do?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Rod
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>