[Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

Jim Croft jim.croft at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 00:48:32 CDT 2009

All of the data elements we have been talking about actually come into
existence as a result of a nomenclatural or taxonomic act.  Name,
original author, transferring author, date, place, type, etc.  The
problem is we choose to disregard or not record a number of them in
our presentation of names (and I am looking at your ICZN!) and this is
often reflected in people's data management and database design.

The take home message is that there has been a lot of careful design
work on conceptual design, architecture and standards for nomenclature
and standards in TDWG (and elsewhere).  Rules that satisfy only small
number of end use cases without addressing the ugly *totality* of what
we do will only create problems down stream.

Delve into the TDWG ontologies and vocabularies, and especially

You may be some time... ;)


On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Dan Lahr<daniel.lahr at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't conceive that people will follow a standardized amount of
> fields for every database that is put together. So is the take home
> message that taxonomists should probably start thinking about
> modifying current rules to accommodate the problems coming from the
> unification of all taxonomies?

Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe

More information about the Taxacom mailing list