-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change term - scientificName #350
Comments
As someone working with sampling event data those usage comments, especially "represents the specimen to be labeled as", would make things more confusing. If I'm out in the field performing small mammal trapping, or I have a camera trap, or an ROV taking pictures I won't necessarily know what the specimen is labeled as. I see this is @deepreef's definition from that thread. I have to admit that I don't quite understand all the nuances in that thread but I'm trying to provide the perspective of someone who is an ecologist and not a taxonomist. |
@albenson-usgs As I understand it For me the important thing is to make it clear in the comments how this differs from I'd make a suggested wording myself, but I lack confidence that I understand the nuances. |
Would the wording suggestions from #105
help as a model? Those are already under review.
…On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:13 AM Quentin Groom ***@***.***> wrote:
@albenson-usgs <https://github.com/albenson-usgs> As I understand it
scientificName is intended to be principal and current name of the
occurrence. Obviously it is up to the data provider to decide how they fall
upon that name.
For me the important thing is to make it clear in the comments how this
differs from acceptedNameUsage, originalNameUsage and the atomized ranked
names. For example, currently it is not clear that if you only use one of
these names it should be this one.
I'd make a suggested wording myself, but I lack confidence that I
understand the nuances.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#350 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ724H25GBKGBUELDI75LTMPRO7ANCNFSM44JBHFGA>
.
|
Yes indeed! Which version of #105 is the final version for comment? In the original issue the |
The first comment in a change term issue is always supposed to reflect the
most recent consensus or, if not, the original proposal. If those really
are swapped, I'll fix them. Let me know?
…On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 1:47 PM Quentin Groom ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes indeed! Which version of #105 <#105>
is the final version for comment? In the original issue the
parentNameUsageID and originalNameUsageID seem swapped.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#350 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ723BVUV3YYKDI5AN3DTTMQKS3ANCNFSM44JBHFGA>
.
|
So... this discussion and the similar ones for
|
I think @deepreef 's comment above is still very accurate and accommodates both the Taxon and Occurrence view. One thing I wonder only now about is whether we should clarify that not only Linnean names are acceptable for scientificName, but also hybrids, OTU names or any other "label". Maybe this can be done just by adding a few examples: Comments: The full scientific name, with authorship and date information if known. When forming part of an Identification, this should be the name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term should not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be supplied in the IdentificationQualifier term. When applied to an |
I have updated the Usage comment in the first comment in the issue. This is what will go out in this release. I have not updated the examples to include OTUs and hybrids, however, as this is new and hasn't had time for public consideration. We should include that in the later set of revisions for the definitions of the term set scientificName, acceptedNameUsage, parentNameUsage, originalNameUsage, and probably also verbatimIdentification.
|
Done. |
Term change
Submitter: Quentin Groom
Efficacy Justification (why is this change necessary?): To improve clarity of the term usage, particularly to distinguish the different terms that can hold a scientific Latin name
Demand Justification (if the change is semantic in nature, name at least two organizations that independently need this term): This is largely for people and organizations publishing Darwin Core files to avoid repeated questions that keep cropping up. The issue New term - typifiedName #28 highlighted that the definitions of
scientificName
,acceptedNameUsage
andoriginalNameUsage
are all similar to one another, however, their intended usage is quite distinct, even though it is not clearly documented. The intension of this suggested change is to add to the comments of the term to help users understand the use of the terms more easily. The suggested explanations were given by @deepreef in New term - typifiedName #28, but they are only preliminary.Stability Justification (what concerns are there that this might affect existing implementations?): The intension is that the comments would reinforce the existing definition and thus improve stability.
Implications for dwciri: namespace (does this change affect a dwciri term version)?: No implication
Current Term definition: https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_scientificName
Proposed attributes of the new term:
Coleoptera
(order).Vespertilionidae
(family).Manis
(genus).Ctenomys sociabilis
(genus + specificEpithet).Ambystoma tigrinum diaboli
(genus + specificEpithet + infraspecificEpithet).Roptrocerus typographi (Györfi, 1952)
(genus + specificEpithet + scientificNameAuthorship),Quercus agrifolia var. oxyadenia (Torr.) J.T. Howell
(genus + specificEpithet + taxonRank + infraspecificEpithet + scientificNameAuthorship).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: