[Taxacom] a Standard for Taxonomic Verification Qualifiers

Karen Wilson Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
Sat Jun 17 21:42:49 CDT 2006

Arthur's attachment was stripped off. 
However, his report can be found on the GBIF website:

Besides his report on data quality, there is an interesting set of PPTs
from a data quality workshop in Albuquerque in March 2006, covering
taxonomic and spatial data -
It's well worth looking at, for a summary of both the principles
involved and also the software being developed to clean up such problems
with data.    

Karen W

Karen L. Wilson
Chair, Species 2000 Project Team
National Herbarium of NSW 
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney
Mrs Macquaries Road

The Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust is part of NSW Department of
Environment & Conservation
Phone: +61-2-9231 8137
Fax: +61-2-9241 2797
Email: karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au  

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
taxacom2 at achapman.org
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 9:26 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] a Standard for Taxonomic Verification Qualifiers

I am currently examing the possibility of establishing a TDWG Standard
for Taxonomic Verification Qualifiers and am seeking information from
anyone currently using such qualifiers.  If you are using one (or have
suggestions for one), I would appreciate a copy, which can be sent to me

Later, I hope that we can start a WIKI discussion on the tdwg Web site
(http://www.tdwg.org), and a presentation is proposed for the TDWG
meeting in St Louis in October.

I am currently aware of three standards that are in use 
(see attached file):

1. from Herbarium Information Standards and Protocols for the
Interchange of Data (HISPID) Vers. 3 

2. A similar one based on this and used by the Botanic Gardens community
International Transfer Format for Botanic Gardens Plant Records (ITF)
Vers. 2.0 

3. One used by the Australian National Fish Collection

In the Data Quality Document I prepared for GBIF lat year, I suggested a
two level standard that I would like to see some discussion on. I
believe that none are entirely suitable, and possibly an incorporation
of all four would be the best.

Chapman A.D. (2005). Principles of Data Quality. Report for the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility 2005. 61pp. Copenhagen: GBIF. 

The reasons for such a standard I see as

1. The need for improved documentation of quality with the increasing
distribution of primary species data 2. The introduction of privacy
legislation in many countries that is beginning to restrict the
distribution of people's names, including the names of determiners of
specimens.  If we cannot exchange the name of the determiner, we need
some other method to reliably document the confidence we have in the

I look forward to your responses.


Arthur D. Chapman
Australian Biodiversity Information Services
Toowoomba, Australia

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. 

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).

More information about the Taxacom mailing list