author of the name

Paul J. Morris mole at MORRIS.NET
Sat Jul 12 13:53:34 CDT 2003


I think the answer depends a lot on the context.

If you are developing an information interchange standard, then you
probably do not want to make these data mandatory elements, as some
collections data sets may not include fields for these concepts.

If you are capturing legacy data from handwritten catalogs or other
sources you do not want fields for these data to be required to contain
values (you may wish to prohibit null values and allow empty strings) as
you will encounter names in legacy data that do not include authorship
information.  As Mary Barkworth pointed out, legacy data are often full
of inaccurate authorship information, and as more authoritative lists of
names come on line you will want to check the name author year
combinations you find in your datasets against those lists.
If you are compiling a species level taxonomic dictionary for a
collections database you may well want to make authorship fields
mandatory.

The fields that you use to hold author and year of publication may also
vary depending on the context.

For a collections data exchange standard you may well want to use a
single concept to hold a string value representing author, year of
publication (if present), and parenthesies (if applicable) as some
collections will probably have used a single string field to hold these
pieces of information.  For a taxonomic data exchange standard you would
defintely want to separate these three concepts, but the goals of a
collections data exchange standard might be met without atomizing these
concepts.

For a database and data entry system customized for rapid capture of
legacy paper records (e.g. verbatim capture of information in a
handwritten catalog), you may well also wish to use a single field to
enter author, year of publication, and parenthesies, and then write a
parser to split this verbatim string into three fields after all the
data have been captured.  Capturing a single literal text string
requires two errors to be made to incorrectly add or omit parenthesies,
while usign a single field to indicate parenthesies will result in some
portion of the data being in error in a way that cannot easily be
checked unless an authoritative name list is available.  Capturing a
single literal text string rather than using three fields will probably
result in faster data capture, and for data capture from large
handwritten catalogs these time savings will be significant.

For a database to manage collections data (other than capturing verbatim
data from bulk sources), you will probably want to use atomized fields
for authorship, year of publication, and whether parenthesies should be
applied.   You may (but in the context of a collections database
probably do not have the resources) want to further normalize the
authorship string and link authors held in an a generic agent table to
taxon names in a many to many relationship (through a table that
implements an authorship associative entity) as Richard Pyle discussed.


The ideal goal is to have the information stored in a highly normalized
relational structure (or heirarchical object structure), where
collections objects have multiple identifications applied to them an
each identification uses one taxon name, and each taxon name is created
in one publication that has a publication date and has an authorship
list where each author in the list is an agent.  But the available
resources may not allow you to separate your existing data out this
cleanly or build software to handle this complexity with an efficient
user interface.  Some kinds of tasks, such as rapid capture of verbatim
text from bulk paper data sources may proceed much more efficiently and
accurately if you use a simpler data structure and then check and
manipulate the data in bulk after it has been captured in electronic
form.

Author and year of publication of a taxon are important information, but
for existing collections data, they are often in error, and with the
exception of types, are not core critical pieces of information for
collections data.  Within the context of limited resources that we work
in in most collections, you may want to keep the storage of this
information as simple as possible and rely on the folks who are
compiling authoritative lists of names to provide accurate values for
taxon name, author, year of publication, parenthesies, that you will be
able to link to or import in the future.  With limited resources, it may
be best to focus design and programing effort on the quality of the core
pieces of information about the collections objects themselves.

Hope this is of help,
-Paul
-------------
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Information Manager, The Academy of Natural Sciences
1900 Ben Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia PA, 19103, USA
mole at morris.net  1-215-299-1161  AA3SD  PGP public key available

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:20:54 -0500
Liliana Lara Morales <llara at XOLO.CONABIO.GOB.MX> wrote:

> In biodiversity information system based on specimen data from
> biological scientific collection, should have as mandatory data
>   the author of the name and date of publication for the scientific
>   name?
>
> Liliana Lara
> National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of the Biodiversity
> (CONABIO). www.conabio.gob.mx
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list